Re: A better recompile process? Was: Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies

[Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org>]

Hello.

On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 09:59:25AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 10:49:12PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > I have to add one thing. I actually think it is good to detect
> > the second type of problem (which will happen when the package
> > has been in testing for some time) becuase libraries is supposed
> > to be backwards compatible.
> 
> I see what you are getting at now.
> 
> However, what happens if there is a new major version of libxyz in
> unstable, that is not yet in testing?
> 
> How will it get tested if the packages continue getting compiled against
> the older version in testing?
> 
> Presumably a new major version means that it isn't backword compatable.

Before I answer I have to know one more thing. Is all packages recompiled
before they enter unstable or is that just for testing?

If they are not recompiled that will not be a problem because that they
are tested becuase people tend to use unstable (at least people like
me).

If all packages are recompiled before entering unstable that is a
problem. If so we have to tag them differently depending on if
they are rebuilt or not.

Regards,

// Ola

> --
> Brian May <bam@debian.org>
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
 --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/  opal@debian.org                     Annebergsslingan 37      \
|  opal@lysator.liu.se                 654 65 KARLSTAD          |
|  +46 (0)54-10 14 30                  +46 (0)70-332 1551       |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org             UIN/icq: 4912500         |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------