1 |
> On 09/11/2010 03:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> > Or does the problem only occur if you mix keywords and ignore |
3 |
> > dependencies? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> I think that if a package doesn't work in a mixed environment, that |
6 |
> points to a likely dependency problem. Sooner or later there is a good |
7 |
> chance it will bite somebody. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Personally, I try to keep package dependencies correct. If a package in |
10 |
> unstable needs a library version in unstable, I depend on that version - |
11 |
> not on the library itself. Then we won't get burned in six months when |
12 |
> I forget all about this or am not around and things start going stable |
13 |
> in the wrong order. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Sure, if the issue is something really exotic maybe we should just say |
16 |
> "don't do that," but usually there is a better fix. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Personally I welcome these kinds of bugs, as they're the easiest way to |
19 |
> uncover non-obvious dependency issues that might otherwise make their |
20 |
> way into stable. Maybe we can't fix them all, but we ought not to just |
21 |
> dismiss them out of hand. I certainly wouldn't want to see the |
22 |
> bug-wranglers screening for them, for instance. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Rich |
25 |
|
26 |
++ |
27 |
|
28 |
There should be nothing stopping a user from running a mixed arch/~arch |
29 |
system. Those problems just point to our dependency information not being |
30 |
recorded correctly. It might be understandable that this info can be |
31 |
incredibly hard to get correct but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid bug. |
32 |
|
33 |
- Alistair |