Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On 4 May 2005, at 6:39 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote: On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually I do add the conflicts: header. I think that's a dangerous thing to do. When the bug in the other package is fixed, the chances are that you won't know about it, and then you'll end up with two packages which conflict with each other for no reason. That's why we have versioned conflicts. Also, when adding a conflicts to another package that is buggy, it would be _extremely_ bad form to not track that other package for when the bug is fixed -- or, at least, to file or reassign a bug to that package. Good point - I'd forgotten about versioned conflicts (never having needed to use one!). It causes no harm, as long as one is careful. And isn't being careful something you should be doing anyway? Yup. Tim -- Dr Tim Cutts GPG: 1024/D FC81E159 5BA6 8CD4 2C57 9824 6638 C066 16E2 F4F5 FC81 E159 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote: > On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make > >it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package > >that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually I > >do add the conflicts: header. > > I think that's a dangerous thing to do. When the bug in the other > package is fixed, the chances are that you won't know about it, and > then you'll end up with two packages which conflict with each other for > no reason. That's why we have versioned conflicts. Also, when adding a conflicts to another package that is buggy, it would be _extremely_ bad form to not track that other package for when the bug is fixed -- or, at least, to file or reassign a bug to that package. > In this case, that's fair enough, because they're two variants of the > same thing, And, moreover, one of the two is now defunct. > but I don't think this sort of thing should be done in the general > case. It causes no harm, as long as one is careful. And isn't being careful something you should be doing anyway? -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the Conflict is need. The bug is in the other package, packages are not required to work around other bugs in other packages, that'd be a gigantic mess of workarounds. There'll be lots of workarounds, but that doesn't necessarily equate to 'a mess'. If dash breaks using my package for whatever reason, I'm not going to add a conflict: dash (with non-fixed version or whatever), dash needs to fix it. True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually I do add the conflicts: header. I think that's a dangerous thing to do. When the bug in the other package is fixed, the chances are that you won't know about it, and then you'll end up with two packages which conflict with each other for no reason. In this case, that's fair enough, because they're two variants of the same thing, but I don't think this sort of thing should be done in the general case. Tim -- Dr Tim Cutts GPG: 1024/D FC81E159 5BA6 8CD4 2C57 9824 6638 C066 16E2 F4F5 FC81 E159 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have > > users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the > > Conflict is need. > > The bug is in the other package, packages are not required to work > around other bugs in other packages, that'd be a gigantic mess of > workarounds. If dash breaks using my package for whatever reason, I'm > not going to add a conflict: dash (with non-fixed version or whatever), > dash needs to fix it. > > Ditto here, and the fix is removing the package. That's a pretty maintainer-centric view. For your _users_, it doesn't matter which of the packages was "guilty" - and a Conflicts is cheap. See e.g. #218717 and #220983 for examples where the other packages was technically wrong, but a Conflicts in libc6 was the only possible solution. I hope you agree that a Conflicts in a non-"guilty" package is better than email loss for your users? > --Jeroen cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > A Replaces without a Conflicts is I think always wrong. > > No, absolutely not. See policy, section 7.5, for details -- especially > section 7.5.1. Policy is buggy since it doesn't match the current practice of dpkg (which is itself buggy--#164595, #184635, #277890). -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, Just some respoces: (There is several quotings from several people.) 1st the tecnical: Josselin Mouette: > As I understand the issue, I have to agree with the maintainer: the > conflict statement should be added in the wxwidgets 2.5 packages, not > the 2.4 ones. Adding it in the 2.4 packages is completely useless upon > upgrades. Goswin: > No, as I read there first was 2.4 then 2.5 came and then the 2.4 > package got a new version uploaded after 2.5 causing the problem on > upgrade. > > So 2.5 is broken for having a replaces without conflicts and for not > coordinating an update with 2.4. And the new 2.4 is broken for not > having a conflict to clean up the broken mess 2.5 creates. The both packages are from the same maintainer and so also a reassignment to the other package might be correct but minor use. But... The wxpython2.5.3 and libwxgtk2.4-python_2.4.2.6 was coexisting fine and only the update of libwxgtk2.4-python to version 2.4.2.6.1 triggers the bug. So maybe the version 2.5.3 have also bugs the conflict was triggering from the libwxgtk2.4-python package and so the bug is there. (As I understand) That the wxpython2.5.3 will get removed soon does not help as 1st, some people just have installed it and 2nd, there are other packages depending on it (svn-workbench). 2nd the debian stuff: There is many trust the users of debian (me included) have to the maintainer creating (tecnical) clean, secure and good packages. Such reactions from a maintainer do violent this trust. I for my person cannot trust anymore him to make good packages and have to package it by myself to fix all dependencies. Other users might not have this background to do so. And think of it, they install the BINARY packages created from you. I also have no problemes fixing such bugs localy. But this do not solve the bug; only the maintainer can do that. And, in this case, I was not the first bugreporter of this bug. 3rd the human: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: > As for you, Klaus, what were you thinking when you replied in a tone like > that to someone that was obviously pretty much pissed off? Regardless of > whether he should have replied to you in an insulting tone or not, you *did* > ask for trouble. Let the matter drop, you are not helping. I only whant to say somethink to this paragraph, the other only gets into a mud war. It is true that (in the last mail to him) I did not hold an objective voice. And that was not helping. But, I was not the first submitter. Ron did slight the original poster bevore several time until there came no reaction from him. I firstely only wanted to strike that this bug is realy a problem and not only one people has it. In the further time Ron did mail me several mails not going over the bts full of abusive language. I also request him to come back to objective voice but he only answered with more slights. I do not want to open the private discussion here. (Ron might do if he want.) It will only end in mud war and do not help solving the problem. At the final, I'm not good in swearing in english or doing non technical conversation in english. I did several words in this mail (and in others) by using a dictionary. But I do not think, the sentences are so bad that they can missunderstud (applied to the bug report) as a personal attack to Ron. There was no reason for me to fight him and my only intention was to solve the bug in the way I describe above in point 2. Regards Klaus - -- Klaus Ethgenhttp://www.ethgen.de/ pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBQnS/DZ+OKpjRpO3lAQJVNQf+LTBrK3UCZtbuP0MFPkDIeoYha9El0/+s QlmeNcHcatwfH4145md7+NS0nnf9wkKBGzTxFc6aTPKcWPj4nGazTxqaB+K82UJf REEVqqkt0SRcTbxnJ+rObjqzltOejtNujl9P5ZNi6ZNr0e2BCxAkS/ZxoyVX9+R4 cGnqeuXGLGvlktAaoCyIjaS4kE1vAddKtcA2LznJvPk/qsEOm0G2IW7s66VH9js8 JOyN3ftip+6K6R7FXllfKG03p45b8ZteUFr1YNVaNpLGNFkYWrYXNvQvqFDJ8QT7 3PdaeB8BmdfM+J6sOH7arYkDUEdqf0EbFCJ2r+Jnbfmq5pJWJLNVPQ== =LvxM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> A Replaces without a Conflicts is I think always wrong. > > No, absolutely not. See policy, section 7.5, for details -- especially > section 7.5.1. Still leaves the following problem: bar replaces some of foo's files. apt-get install foo apt-get install bar apt-get remove bar Now foo is left with files missing and bar is to blame. Doesn't that make bar RC buggy? OR apt-get install bar apt-get install foo # error, tries to overwrite files of bar Now foo is uninstallable. Again a bug. The only way bth problems can be avoided is when foo depends on bar, bar depends on foo, foo replaces bar and bar replaces foo. Do we want such cyclic depends and replaces? I still think that a lone Replaces is always wrong. Not forbidden by policy but it causes bugs. Maybe 7.5.1 should be retitled to "Moving a file from one package to another" and extended to include a versioned conflict with the old package. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
"Adam M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >>Klaus Ethgen wrote: >> >> >> >>>The according bug is #306608. >>> >>> >> >>This is a bug, though possibly not in the libwxgtk2.4-python package. If >>the relevant maintainers (libwxgtk2.4-python, wxpython2.5.3) and bug >>sumitters can't work out a solution, then ask the Technical Comittee to >>do so. That's what they're there for. >> >> > > I haven't read the bug report, but when a newer package replaces an > older one, you need to have add a > Conflicts: > Replaces: > To the new package. I think apt-get, dselect and others have been set up > in this manner. > > It is not correct to put Conflicts in the 2.4 package because it is 2.5 > that *caused* the conflict. It came on the scene AFTER 2.4, right? > > - Adam No, as I read there first was 2.4 then 2.5 came and then the 2.4 package got a new version uploaded after 2.5 causing the problem on upgrade. So 2.5 is broken for having a replaces without conflicts and for not coordinating an update with 2.4. And the new 2.4 is broken for not having a conflict to clean up the broken mess 2.5 creates. It looks like 2.5 misused the Replaces field to manage a common file both 2.4 and 2.5 have. The right procedure would have been to split that file out of both packages into it's own package and have a conflicts, replaces and provides between the two (assuming the 2.5 version works for 2.4 too). The question is: Is it the job of 2.4 to clean up the mess 2.5 made? My opinion: yes, if you are doing an upload anyway then add the conflicts. Doesn't hurt you. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > A Replaces without a Conflicts is I think always wrong. No, absolutely not. See policy, section 7.5, for details -- especially section 7.5.1. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have > > users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the > > Conflict is need. > > The bug is in the other package, packages are not required to work > around other bugs in other packages, that'd be a gigantic mess of > workarounds. There'll be lots of workarounds, but that doesn't necessarily equate to 'a mess'. > If dash breaks using my package for whatever reason, I'm not going to > add a conflict: dash (with non-fixed version or whatever), dash needs > to fix it. True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually I do add the conflicts: header. > Ditto here, and the fix is removing the package. ... which would be accomplished by adding the Conflicts: header. I don't see the problem. That being said, of course the choice is up to the maintainer; I'm not going to tell you (or him) what to do :-) -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have > users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the > Conflict is need. The bug is in the other package, packages are not required to work around other bugs in other packages, that'd be a gigantic mess of workarounds. If dash breaks using my package for whatever reason, I'm not going to add a conflict: dash (with non-fixed version or whatever), dash needs to fix it. Ditto here, and the fix is removing the package. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
> "steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: steve> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 03:06:31PM -0400, sean finney steve> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:30:38PM +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > >> The according bug is #306608. >> having read through the bug report, it seems to me the >> appropriate thing to have done all along was add a Conflicts >> statement, which really does no harm and does resolve the >> issue. steve> Sorry, but insisting that a maintainer add a Conflicts: steve> against a separately RC-buggy package which is not in steve> testing and will shortly be removed from unstable is just steve> silly. It can be done, but for the most part this bug is steve> going to resolve itself, and there's no reason the steve> maintainer should treat adding this conflict as a high steve> priority under the circumstances. But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the Conflict is need. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - "Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 03:06:31PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:30:38PM +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > The according bug is #306608. > having read through the bug report, it seems to me the appropriate thing > to have done all along was add a Conflicts statement, which really does > no harm and does resolve the issue. Sorry, but insisting that a maintainer add a Conflicts: against a separately RC-buggy package which is not in testing and will shortly be removed from unstable is just silly. It can be done, but for the most part this bug is going to resolve itself, and there's no reason the maintainer should treat adding this conflict as a high priority under the circumstances. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Klaus Ethgen wrote: > >> The according bug is #306608. > > It looks like the issue there (trying to quickly read through it) is if > package libwxgtk2.4-python nedds to declare a Conflicts: with package > wxpython2.5.3. The reason being that both provide a /usr/bin/helpviewer. > > First off, this is a tad bit weird; wxpython2.5.3 declares a > Replaces: libwxgtk2.4-python. Maybe because of the order of installation > dpkg is ignoring this. wxpython2.5.3 replaces libwxgtk2.4-python. It may thus overwrite files also present in libwxgtk2.4-python. The reverse is not true. libwxgtk2.4-python does not replace wxpython2.5.3 and may not overwrite files of wxpython2.5.3. Not even files it formerly owned. dpkg doesn't know what files got replaced. A Replaces without a Conflicts is I think always wrong. If you replace something you MUST make sure the other package gets updated to a version without the file. Otherwise you run into problems just like this one. The other one is that removing wxpython2.5.e will remove files of libwxgtk2.4-python leaving it broken. So the maintainer has a bit of a point there. > However, Policy 10.1 gives two ways to handle programs with the same > file name and the same functionality. [Same name, different > functionality, is not allowed at all.] Either alternatives or conflicts > may be used. > > This is a bug, though possibly not in the libwxgtk2.4-python package. If > the relevant maintainers (libwxgtk2.4-python, wxpython2.5.3) and bug > sumitters can't work out a solution, then ask the Technical Comittee to > do so. That's what they're there for. I think the right solution is to reassign the bug to "wxpython2.5.3, libwxgtk2.4-python". That way there is only one bug about the problem and it shows up on both packages bug list. Everyone can see whats going on and the wxpython2.5.3 maintainer gets all the complaints from libwxgtk2.4-python users too. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > > >>The according bug is #306608. >> >> > >This is a bug, though possibly not in the libwxgtk2.4-python package. If >the relevant maintainers (libwxgtk2.4-python, wxpython2.5.3) and bug >sumitters can't work out a solution, then ask the Technical Comittee to >do so. That's what they're there for. > > I haven't read the bug report, but when a newer package replaces an older one, you need to have add a Conflicts: Replaces: To the new package. I think apt-get, dselect and others have been set up in this manner. It is not correct to put Conflicts in the 2.4 package because it is 2.5 that *caused* the conflict. It came on the scene AFTER 2.4, right? - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Wrong. The other package has a broken replaces header, without the required > conflicts header it needs to have. yeah, looks like i was. that said, the rest of my response (this should be forwarded to the tech committee if he really cares) still holds. sean -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, sean finney wrote: > having read through the bug report, it seems to me the appropriate thing > to have done all along was add a Conflicts statement, which really does > no harm and does resolve the issue. Wrong. The other package has a broken replaces header, without the required conflicts header it needs to have. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
(reply to public mail sent to d-devel). On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > The problem is that I do not know how to handle with a bug. The > maintainer of this bug is not in the mood to fix the bug he rather > slight the submitters (not only me) in the bugreport and also by private > mail. If I were him, I would not adopt the requested fix either, as it is wrong. If the 2.5 package replaces the 2.4 packages, it *MUST* conflict with it and that's the beginning and end of it. Replaces: without Conflicts: is used in special circunstances (most of the time versioned), e.g., to move files from a package to another. And in that case, it *always* must be coordinated between the two packages, which evidendly is not the case here. > I honore the work, maintainers do. But this subject do not increase the > trust in debian as whole and in the packages of him specialy. I thought > that there is a minimum of social competence to get debian maintainer > but I have to see that this was a wrong assument. :-( He is only human, therefore he has a finite ammount of patience, that apparently run out. That's a shame, of course, he should have known better than to let it get to him, or to let a BTS thread degrade to such levels. Every time a DD talks back insultingly to an user, he has lost the argument. Ron, please, the next time you feel like insulting someone while wearing your Debian Developer hat (and regardless of whether they deserve it or not), DON'T. And the wontfix tag exists just for the kind of issue you had on that bug report, so please consider using it (after reassigning one of the bugs, or them all, to the offending package). As for you, Klaus, what were you thinking when you replied in a tone like that to someone that was obviously pretty much pissed off? Regardless of whether he should have replied to you in an insulting tone or not, you *did* ask for trouble. Let the matter drop, you are not helping. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
Klaus Ethgen wrote: > The according bug is #306608. It looks like the issue there (trying to quickly read through it) is if package libwxgtk2.4-python nedds to declare a Conflicts: with package wxpython2.5.3. The reason being that both provide a /usr/bin/helpviewer. First off, this is a tad bit weird; wxpython2.5.3 declares a Replaces: libwxgtk2.4-python. Maybe because of the order of installation dpkg is ignoring this. However, Policy 10.1 gives two ways to handle programs with the same file name and the same functionality. [Same name, different functionality, is not allowed at all.] Either alternatives or conflicts may be used. This is a bug, though possibly not in the libwxgtk2.4-python package. If the relevant maintainers (libwxgtk2.4-python, wxpython2.5.3) and bug sumitters can't work out a solution, then ask the Technical Comittee to do so. That's what they're there for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
Le samedi 30 avril 2005 à 15:06 -0400, sean finney a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:30:38PM +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > The according bug is #306608. > > having read through the bug report, it seems to me the appropriate thing > to have done all along was add a Conflicts statement, which really does > no harm and does resolve the issue. As I understand the issue, I have to agree with the maintainer: the conflict statement should be added in the wxwidgets 2.5 packages, not the 2.4 ones. Adding it in the 2.4 packages is completely useless upon upgrades. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:30:38PM +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > The according bug is #306608. having read through the bug report, it seems to me the appropriate thing to have done all along was add a Conflicts statement, which really does no harm and does resolve the issue. HOWEVER, that said, the maintainer seems set in his ways, and maybe there's something i don't know. if you really feel the maintainer should be forced to fix the problem as was proposed, there does exist a means of arbitrating this argument[1][2]. sean -- [1] http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-housekeeping [2] i don't know if this applies to non-dd's, but you could find a sponsor for it if it did. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
