Re: DO NOT REMOVE the lib packages after updates
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:12:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> >> Would you advocate uploading libraries with new soname to experimental
> >> and getting all reverse depends build against it (also in
> >> experimental) so that a transition can then be pushed through within
> >> days?
> >
> > I'm not sure. What is the advantage over doing the same thing with
> > s/unstable/testing/ and s/experimental/unstable/ ?
>
> Breaking unstable for possibly weaks and preventing any new packages
> (that depend on the lib) from entering sarge.
These sorts of problems are trivial to fix; if the maintainer leaves his
package broken for a week or more, and its breakage is interfering with the
release, then it should be an NMU candidate.
--
- mdz
Reply to: