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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for April 28, 2000



On 00-04-30 Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 10:28:08PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:

> > Are you aware of the fact that libreadlineg2 is in the section oldlibs
> > while libreadline4 is in the section base? So the recompilation is
> > needed also for potato to make sure, that the packages don't use a
> > library from the section oldlib. 

> I am aware of that, sure. The problem is that somebody said on -devel, 
> that there are differences between libreadline version 2 and 4 that 

Who said that and what are exactly the differences? 

> can't be dealt with by recompiling. So every time we just recompile 
> a package against libreadline4 we risk breaking that package. 

So why did we then move libreadline4 to section base for potato and
libreadlineg2 to oldlibs? How many package may be broken in the archive
because of this? Where do you risk breacking that package if you
recompiled it and test it?

> And this is not the right time for such experiments...

So we should still stick with libraries from the section oldlibs? When
is the right time for experiments? 

Ciao
     Christian
-- 
          Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
    1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853


Reply to: