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

Re: e2fsprogs 1.26

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:56:40PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Seems it would just break things, more than solve them.

Hm, maybe.  Even more, my yesterday attempt showed that there are at
least one versionned dep against e2fsprogs, from sysvinit.  So until
we have support for versionned provides (it's in CVS only, right ?),
it's not possible to do it that way.

Let's reconsider simply upgrading the main package:

AJ wrote:
> Am I correct in thinking that e2fsprogs doesn't provide any shared
> libraries, or anything else that might cause packages built with the
> new e2fsprogs to not work on systems with the old e2fsprogs? Assuming
> that's the case...
> I don't think it should be a problem if you just upload e2fsprogs 1.26
> (same package, new version). It'll take 20 days of unstable users beating
> on it before it's let into woody assuming you set the urgency to "low",
> which should be enough time to notice any severe problems with it.

Are your concerns related to the possibility that the packages
build-depending on e2fsprogs libs would not be rebuilt ?

That's 14 source packages (autoinstall-i386 bonobo delo dump
ext2resize geas gnome-utils mc parted quik red-carpet silo xfsdump
xfsprogs), 13 unique maintainers inclusing 'Debian QA Group' (quik is

Most of them have build-depend on uuid-dev, which AFAIK has not
changed.  That leaves 6 packages really needing rebuild (delo dump
gnome-utils mc quik silo).

IMHO, that'd be possible to achieve.

Green light ?  Red light ?

Yann Dirson <Yann.Dirson@fr.alcove.com>                 http://www.alcove.com/
Free-Software Engineer				      Ingénieur Logiciel-Libre
Free-Software time manager    	       Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre
Debian GNU/Linux developper <dirson@debian.org>

Reply to: