Bug#379278: how to treat upgrade bugs that only affect unstable->unstable?

[Peter Samuelson]

CC: debian-devel, as I'm asking about packaging best practices.

[Agustin Martin]
> >    * python-subversion.{prerm,postinst}: use pyversions, fix stupid
> >      bug (Closes: #379278) in prerm.  Tighten python build-dep to
> >      ensure availability of pyversions.
> 
> Note that some upgrades might still be a problem,

> dpkg: warning - old pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
> dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...

That raises a philosophical question:

If a bug was in a prerm script in unstable for 7 days, but never
appeared in stable or testing, should we include cruft in present and
future prerm versions to work around it?

Or, put another way: a prerm is designed to run with the package
version it is shipped with.  To what lengths should it go to do the
right thing when dpkg runs it with previous versions of the package?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-subversion-maintainers/attachments/20060913/e7c378f2/attachment.pgp