[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg_1.16.1.1~bpo60+1_i386.changes REJECTED

Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Thursday, den 03. November 2011:

> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > the worst that can happen - and it will happen - is that users install the
> > dpkg from bpo. And we now from the past that nearly every dpkg upgrade had
> > unwanted side effects.
> Justify your assertion. This is the same dpkg that wheezy users have
> upgraded to and it has not caused any major problem. Some people complains
> about new warnings but that's all.
> We take care of getting dependencies straight in dpkg. We take
> compatibility seriously. We ensure that upgrades paths are tested (and we
> take care of downgrade too, allowing it or forbidding it depending on
> whether it's safe to do it or not).
> And I'm available to fix any major problem by releasing a modified
> backport if required.
> This looks like random bashing of our work without any good justification.
Just let me cite yourself:
"This backport should thus not be used to build "normal" squeeze packages,
at it could introduce regressions (due to the build flags no longer being
set in the environment). "

This is not acceptable for a package in bpo. (there are several other reasons
like the next dpkg version with full multi arch will hit unstable soon and I
guess testing soon. And this is a version I really don't want to have in
bpo). And I am still not sure about any side effect that get introduced even
with only dpkg-dev. We had this problems in the past with debhelper, it took
me some time to cleanup the mess then. So - no thank you.


Reply to: