Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 220.127.116.11a-2) ?
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:43:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev
> > > and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it
> > > doesn't matter?
> > As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't think it does matter.
> But it might. There *have* been changes to the libraries between 18.104.22.168
> and 3.3.5. No, I don't think any interfaces have changed.
> But just to err on the side of caution, would anyone doing what Santiago is
> doing PLEASE recompile their packages against the latest versions of the
> potato libraries shortly before the potato freeze?
> Mixed slink/potato systems are temporary things. Potato will be around for
> a long time. So let us please make it internally consistent.
You seem to imply that a package compiled under slink saying
xlib6g (>= 22.214.171.124a-2) "might" not work ok under potato. Well, if this is
the case, then IMHO it would be a bug, that we should better discover and
fix rather than not discover and not fix it.
"d3b4a86229ffa32d21ca6b60a5e15b21" (a truly random sig)