Re: Imlib NMU
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 01:03:10PM -0400, Steve Dunham wrote:
> Please people, don't upload NMUs without at least trying to discuss it
> with the developer. If I wanted to deal with "anyone can upload a new
> version anytime he/she feels like it", I would be making RPMS.
That was the main thrust of my original post :)
> I recently had somebody completely break my dhcpcd package by
> uploading a completely different dhcpcd daemon with much larger
> version number. They didn't even ask me. If they had asked me, or
> looked at the bugs filed against the package, they would have found
> out where to get an experimental package of the thing they uploaded,
> packaged correctly. (I had to introduce epochs to override the NMU.)
I noticed. I use the 2.1.x version of dhcpcd (compiled from source). The
package he uploaded didn't even WORK for me (even though it was the same
> libjpeg6b is broken and shouldn't be used by any new packages. It
> doesn't respect the upstream maintainers choice of soname, namely
> libjpeg.so.62, and hence makes Debian incompatible with Red Hat.
> (RedHat does use the the upstream soname.) Until somebody gets around
> to releasing a "libjpeg62" package, we should stick with libjpeg6a.
Oooh. Interesting snag. So. We need to make a joint decision. I talked
to Jim Pick last night about putting 6b in slink, and get it in before the
freeze. However this makes me edgy. Jim, Chris? Your opinions? Maybe we
should just leave it at 6a...even Chris admits that 6b has not been tested.
I don't want to break every Imlib dependent package totally a week and half
before the freeze.
Brian Almeida <email@example.com> http://www.debian.org/~bma/
_ _ _
__| | ___| |__ (_) __ _ _ __
/ _` |/ _ \ '_ \| |/ _` | '_ \ Debian GNU/Linux Developer
| (_| | __/ |_) | | (_| | | | | PGP Key: 0x3A800C65
\__,_|\___|_.__/|_|\__,_|_| |_| http://www.debian.org
Debian Linux: Because Size DOES Matter