Bug#527980: Done, no packages depend on it anymore

[Artur R. Czechowski]

reopen 527980
thanks

Patrick,
Before you close this bug again, please, read carefully the whole log of
bugreport.

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:01:26AM +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> No, you are running stable and physfs 2.0.0 will never make it's way to
> stable.
I wonder how you deduced it...
arturcz at szczaw:~$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list | grep -v '^#' | grep -v '^$'
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
deb file:/home/arturcz/debs ./
deb-src file:/home/arturcz/debs ./
deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org sid main

> btw:
> sid = unstable
> squeeze = testing (currently)
> lenny = stable (currently)
That's not what you wrote earlier:
> >> Sorry, this is not testing/unstable, where the specific physfs version
> >> is available. You have to test it against testing/sid, where everything
> >> is fine.
but we can consider this misunderstanding as cleared.

> This problem is fixed for the unstable and testing stage and it does not
> need to be fixed for stable, because there is no physfs 2.0.0.
No, it's not. For example: balder2d still has a dependency on libphysfs-1.0-0.
If someone had installed balder2d before you introduced libphysfs1 2.0.0-3
then the one fetched libphysfs-1.0-0. And even introducing libphysfs1
does not make libphysfs-1.0-0 deinstalled. If you don't believe me
please do following experiment: 
1. Create a chroot with clean base installation of current stable.
2. Install mentioned balder2d package - you also fetched libphysfs-1.0-0.
3. Change sources.list to testing or unstable - whatever suits better in
   your opinion.
4. Do the upgrade.
5. You still have libphysfs-1.0-0 installed.

So, please consider following scenario:
1. User use current stable.
2. User has installed balder2d as an only package depending on libphysfs-1.0-0.
3. Squeze is released as stable.
4. User makes an upgrade.
5. User still has libphysfs-1.0-0 installed.

Even libphysfs1 providing libphysfs-1.0-0 does not change it.

Now, let you imagine that a critical bug has been discovered in libphysfs-1.0-0.
User still has this version installed and providing fixed libphysfs1 change
nothing.

To fix the bug you have two option:
1. Provide upgrade path from libphysfs-1.0-0 to libphysfs1.
2. Ask maintainers of four packages mentioned earlier to recompile their
   packages. It will automatically update a dependency from libphysfs-1.0-0
   to libphysfs1. As an alternative you can ask debian-release team to schedule
   those packages for rebuilding and binary only NMU.

Unless any of above is fullfilled this wishlist bug is not fixed, so please
don't close it unless:
1. You provide proper upgrade path (that's the better solution).
2. You submit a bug for packages still having a dependency on libphysfs-1.0-0.

Of course you still have an option of tagging this bug as wontfix. But
please do not close the bug if it is NOT fixed.

Regards
	Artur
-- 
Po co mamy ze sobą rozmawiać, skoro tak łatwo się komunikować?
						/Jean Baudrillard/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20091102/965aae79/attachment-0001.pgp>