Bug#687694: Close?

[Niels Thykier]

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