Re: Which versions of libraries are developers supposed to compile against?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 02:31:57PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> spake forth:
> Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk> immo vero scripsit
> > But when things start being properly, but gradually frozen, presumably
> > that simple strategy won't be sufficient. Because if balsa
> > Build-Depends on libfoo-dev, and libfoo is frozen, I want the woody
> > version of libfoo-dev, not the unstable (sid) one.
>
> I guess using a woody chroot to build packages would be an idea,
> because presumably, you can't really downgrade libraries very easily.
This may be a resolved issue, but last I heard source-only uploads did not
work. While I understand that how katie and the pools deal with packages
make it difficult to allow source-only uploads that are picked up by the
buildd's, it would be incredibly useful to do, after testing a successful
binary package build of course, a dpkg-buildpackage -S and upload the
_sources.changes and associated files.
If the build environment on the buildds isn't what you need, you're up shit
creek without a paddle regardless - unless you have the time and access to
build for every arch we're releasing for everytime you make an upload...
--
Mike Markley <mike@markley.org>
GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313 FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer."
- Dr. McCoy, Devil in the Dark", when asked to patch up the Horta.
Reply to: