Bug#288009: batik 1.5.1 would break fop

[Steve Langasek]

--huq684BweRXVnRxX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:12:35PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:22:19PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
>  >>fop is currently not in testing although a valid candidate.
> >>A "solution" to the problem would be to upgrade batik to 1.5.1
> >>and also to upload a new fop package with an embedded batik
> >>library in the current version (with the affected Squiggle
> >>class files removed from the library).

> >fop is not really a valid candidate, although it appears to be in
> >grep-excuses.  Both libfop-java and libfop-java-doc are uninstallable on
> >their own right in unstable, because libfop-java depends on fop and fop
> >conflicts with libfop-java.  You can safely ignore this package for the=
=20
> >time
> >being...

> There was a small discussion on debian-java the last minutes. I will
> prepare a patched fop release which should compile against batik 1.5.1

> Should therefore the libfop-java and libfop-java-doc binary packages
> removed in the new package ? I think they are transitional packages
> not needed anymore as fop is not in testing at all. Am I right ?

I don't think there's any reason for transitional packages for a package
that's only in unstable.  It's the maintainer's call whether to have a
transitional package, but this is *not* the way to do it: uninstallable
packages are not allowed.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--huq684BweRXVnRxX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCMNCiKN6ufymYLloRAteaAJoD4z2HNQ5owuAez+ERpgqXcHP+hQCgiYVr
wFXNqFivob6kvCm7LOdfnJs=
=SS8l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--huq684BweRXVnRxX--