Re: Bug#440320: Permission to provide a udeb for libaio
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 19:27:17 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> > 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.
> Guillem, the Joey's above comment 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.
Right, and I agree.
> 1. Message-ID: <[🔎] 20070905183400.GA2315@kitenet.net> at debian-boot
> So please add it on your next upload.
Cool, I've done that, the package should be now in the NEW queue.