[Evolution] Bug#623216: Bug#623216: evolution-data-server: EDS libs < 2.32 not compatible with EDS >= 2.32

[Yves-Alexis Perez]

On lun., 2011-04-18 at 18:05 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-04-18 at 17:50 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On lun., 2011-04-18 at 17:46 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > How is that going to help a user who has Evolution and SyncEvolution
> > > installed on Squeeze and then does a partial update of just Evolution
> > > with "aptitude install -t testing evolution"?
> > > 
> > > If I'm not completely mistaken, aptitude will complete leave
> > > SyncEvolution alone and installed in the Squeeze version together with
> > > the old libecal/ebook, thus leading to a broken system.
> > 
> > It'll prevent upgrading the lib to 2.32 if syncevolution isn't updated
> > together.
> 
> Why? That doesn't follow for me.
> 
> Here's the situation before the update (focusing on libecal):
>       * installed from Squeeze:
>               * syncevolution 1.0+ds1~beta2a-2, depends (>= 2.30.3) on
>               * libecal1.2-7 
>       * Testing has:
>               * syncevolution 1.1~foo-bar, depends (>= 2.30.3 <= 2.32)
>                 on
>               * libecal1.2-8 2.32.2-4
>               * Evolution 2.32.2-2, same dependency
> 
> There's nothing that prevents installing Evolution 3.32 + libecal1.2-8
> from Testing while keeping libecal1.2-7 2.30.3 and syncevolution 1.0
> +ds1~beta2a-2 installed.

HMh yeah good point, the soname change means the depends won't work,
it'll be satisfied indeed. So shlibs is not enough.

> 
> Basically the apps (SyncEvolution or Evolution) can't and shouldn't know
> whether libecal1.2-7 and libecal1.2-8 are installable in parallel. Same
> for a future libecal1.2-9. That will only be known when that future
> version is ready and gets packaged, at which point a "conflicts with"
> should be added to the new package based on that future knowledge.

No, I don't think that's a good idea.

In that *specific* case, evolution is the one updating the gconf schema,
aiui, so I guess a fix would be to add a Breaks: libecal/libebook to
evolution 2.32.

I'm still not so sure about the responsibilities in that case, sorry.

Regards,
-- 
Yves-Alexis