Re: [jamie@audible.transient.net: Bug#74224: 3.1.8 in proposed-updates depends on unstable libc (alpha)]
Previously Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Yeah, but we'll eventually run into problems wrt the new glibc/db setup if
> this kind of practice continues.
No we won't, binaries compiled on potato will run just fine with the new
glibc/db setup.
> I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion that woody developers should mostly
> have their systems updated by now...or am I wrong on this?
You probably are. Also not that in this case the upload was for both
potato and woody, which makes the point moot.
> What happened to the days of version numbering like "1.0.1-1potato" for
> stable updates? Just curious...
As I said, this upload was for both stable and unstable and deserves
a normal version number.
> I uploaded the new base-passwd package for woody only today. Once that is
> installed, I'll build the one for potato.
You could have just compiled it once for potato and uploaded it to both
like everyone else is doing. That's a much cleaner solution then doing
a useless recompile that you seem to insist on doing.
Wichert.
--
________________________________________________________________
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| wichert@cistron.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Reply to: