Re: [Fwd: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 580 - trunk/debian]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the virtual packages aren't sufficient. Well, the maintainer might not do the right thing. I fail to see what harm is caused by my being careful, as long as I declare accurate package relationships. If I do not, bug reports are in order. What does libGLU have to do with anything? #188737, which the rest of revision 580 works around. Okay. I still don't see why I shouldn't be careful with my packages. I can't control what the utah-glx maintainer does; I can control what I do. I agree that dpkg should do the right thing and not require symmetric Conflicts declarations. Still, I feel I am doing the defensive and robust thing here. -- G. Branden Robinson| You don't just decide to break Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get drawn away from it to a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 580 - trunk/debian]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the virtual packages aren't sufficient. Well, the maintainer might not do the right thing. I fail to see what harm is caused by my being careful, as long as I declare accurate package relationships. If I do not, bug reports are in order. What does libGLU have to do with anything? #188737, which the rest of revision 580 works around. Okay. I still don't see why I shouldn't be careful with my packages. I can't control what the utah-glx maintainer does; I can control what I do. I agree that dpkg should do the right thing and not require symmetric Conflicts declarations. Still, I feel I am doing the defensive and robust thing here. -- G. Branden Robinson| You don't just decide to break Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get drawn away from it to a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
