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

Re: Permission to provide a udeb for libaio

Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:

> Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
>> Actually, it is a lot cheaper than having another udeb to track from a
>> d-i RM point of view...
> Is that really true? If bin-nmus, which require finding and prodding one
> of a small set of very busy people, are more maintenence cost than
> managing one more udeb, we're doing something wrong.
> It certianly can be true if the library is used by lots of packages and
> tends to be involved in complex testing transitions. (Agurably that's
> because there's something wrong, like like too-tight library deps that
> cause such transitions.) I don't see any reason why libaio1-udeb would
> be harder to manage than other simple udebs though. The reverse
> dependencies of libaio are very small.
> -- 
> see shy jo

Guillem, the Joey's above comment[1] made clear that would be better to
have the udeb then the effort of coordinating bin-nmu and like in case
of an security update or so.

1. Message-ID: <[🔎] 20070905183400.GA2315@kitenet.net> at debian-boot

So please add it on your next upload.

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Reply to: