Re: Release-critical Bugreport for April 28, 2000
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Release-critical Bugreport for April 28, 2000
- From: Torsten Landschoff <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:25:13 +0200
- Message-id: <20000504082512.A29036@wormhole.galaxy>
- In-reply-to: <20000501111022.B17456@seteuid.getuid.com>; from Christian Kurz on Mon, May 01, 2000 at 11:10:22AM +0200
- References: <20000428031508.A29128@debian.org> <20000429154827.G2986@seteuid.getuid.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20000430103854.Q2986@seteuid.getuid.com> <20000430192706.A20060@wormhole.galaxy> <20000430222808.A17456@seteuid.getuid.com> <20000430231810.A20485@wormhole.galaxy> <20000501111022.B17456@seteuid.getuid.com>
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 11:10:22AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > 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?
I don't remember who said it and I don't know the exact differences. It
does not really matter though.
> > 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?
Okay - but who will test it? I don't use it and I have no idea how testing
would be done.
> > 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?
The right time for such experiments is when you upload to unstable. Not
Torsten Landschoff Bluehorn@IRC <email@example.com>
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Committee Member