On 2012-10-04 22:45, brian.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > Hi,
> I'm happy to make whatever changes are necessary to this package, but I'm > not sure what is gained by providing Breaks for every potential package > affected by a bouncycastle upgrade. It seems to me more proper that if > package X depends on bouncycastle = version Y (which appears to be the case > here) that package should then reflect it, rather than putting X number of > Breaks in the bouncycastle package itself and having to expand that list > each time a new package enters the pool that depends upon it. > > Best regards, > > -Brian > > [...] It would be optimal if reverse dependencies would have the proper upper bound, but fact is that they don't. And at this point it is too late to introduce the upper bound (and relying on it). The use of breaks in bouncycastle is a (temporary) fail-safe, in case someone does a partial upgrade including bouncycastle (from sid), but without (e.g.) libitext-java. The libitext-java in stable has no upper bound, so this would be permitted and "break" libitext-java. To be honest, I am not sure to what extend the breaks are needed, but libitext-java in Wheezy still does not have the proper version (waiting for the RT to get back to me). So partial upgrades between sid and Wheezy are /still/ broken without a Breaks in bouncycastle on libitext-java. If we had a decent transition system for Java (e.g. like the one we have for C/C++ libraries) and it had been followed, we would not have had to resolve to breaks either. ~Niels __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.