On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:21:59AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Let's reconsider simply upgrading the main package:
Just upgrading the main package is the correct solution, almost always.
> 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 ?
No. My concerns are as to whether they'll break if the packages *aren't*
rebuilt, and as to whether packages that are rebuilt with break with
the *old* package.
I don't believe this is the case. I believe that leaving every other
package untouched, and using e2fsprogs 1.26, you'll end up with an
equally good system, possible with a few less bugs.
Of course, there may be some other bugs in e2fsprogs 1.26. The aim is
to find and fix any bugs that matter in the 10 (or 20) days between the
package being uploaded, and it being put into testing.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each toe
individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
Attachment:
pgpBmIPfkHhgt.pgp
Description: PGP signature