my impression too but I'm dead tired. Stef

> I don't buy this argument. Mostly because there's not much of a 
> difference
> between the updates and packages. Just as food for thought ... what 
> would be
> if we define "image version" in a similar form that we define MC 
> package
> versions? If we did, then we *should* be able to declare an appropriate
> dependency, shouldn't we?
>
> If our current release process isn't able to handle this problem then 
> it
> really feels as if that's something that is fundamentally missing. 
> After
> all, it is one of the primary styles of working so it really should be
> possible to state such a dependency in pretty much the same as we state
> dependencies between packages.