Bug#687694: Close?
Niels Thykier
niels at thykier.net
Thu Sep 5 09:07:10 UTC 2013
On 2013-09-05 11:01, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 05/09/2013 10:19, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>
>> Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies
>> to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades.
>
> All of the reverse dependencies that were updated in this transition
> have the correct versionned dependency on bouncycastle. Is it enough or
> do we have to declare Breaks for the reverse dependencies affected in
> bouncycastle?
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
> [...]
We generally still need Breaks. The problem is:
$rdep version X
Depends on $bc >= 1.44
$bc version 1.44
$bc version 1.46
- not compatible with $bc 1.44
$rdep version Y
Depends on $bc >= 1.46
Here, APT or a user can choose to only upgrade $bc to version 1.46 and
keep $rdep at version X. In this case, $rdep is broken but APT thinks
it will "just work"(tm) and therefore allow it. On the other hand, if
$bc version 1.46 Breaks $rdep << Y~, then APT will see that it has to
upgrade both or none at all.
~Niels
More information about the pkg-java-maintainers
mailing list