On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > For that matter, why is it important that Debian provide support for > > > > coinstallability with older packages that are, evidently, not important > > > > enough themselves to be supported by Debian? > > > In contrast, libxml-dev has 731 users and at least one major reverse > > > dependency (gnucash), making it much more valuable. Not to mention just > > > one large API change, vs. PETSc's, um, 10 or so since I first uploaded > > > it. > > Right; it's the API changes that make the idea of an unversioned petsc-dev > > package of questionable utility... > Fair enough. It's a convenience, but one which forces a user/developer > to upgrade his/her code -- or point to the old version (likely still > there because there are no conflicts) until such time becomes available. > Hmm. Perhaps the analogy to linux-image-2.6-SUBARCH is better. The > kernel "API changes" enough to suggest or require some new utilities, > and obsolete others. This *usually* doesn't require users to change > things, as there's a big effort to be backward compatible (e.g. ALSA > provides an OSS-compatible interface), but not always. Well, I think the factor there is that we "usually" want users to upgrade to the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't auto-upgrade to the new API. > But what about the empty linux-image upgrade convenience packages > mentioned above? If the answer is "Such packages are all bad and should > go away", I'm fine with that. No, I certainly think that packages like linux-image-2.6-686 should be kept around. And you've also made a case for why it may be useful to keep petsc-dev around. In any case, it's ultimately the ftp team's decision to make; it sounds to me like all the arguments have been made at this point. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature