Re: Request for guidance on recent golang-yaml.v2 update (DLA-3479-1)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:08:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:23:42AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:11 AM Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The link indicates that it originated from #863956. However, in
> > > discussion with Sylvain (who authored the page) he indicated that for
> > > LTS this is not always a good approach, as Built-Using was much less
> > > reliably available in buster. Are you aware of the situation being
> > > different for buster?
> > >
> >
> > Individual package maintainers may always have mistakes in their
> > packages, by not properly following Go packaging guide. I don't think
> > this is specific to buster or not.
> >
> I understand that there are several factors which contribute to the
> accuracy of being able to identify reverse dependencies in the first
> place. However, those are things that I cannot control.
>
> What would be the most helpful to me to is to know:
>
> - is the list of 101 packages the "best" list I can get (given the
> limitations you pointed out)?
> - do all 101 of those packages need to be rebuilt?
>
I will proceed with the rebuilds and then consider how LTS should be
handling Go-related updates in the future.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: