Re: Be careful of library updates once freeze happens.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Michael Stone wrote:
> > 1. The new version a of my package A needs version b of library B that's
> > brand-new (very usual e.g. with GNOME packages). Do I have to wait (at
> > least) 10 days until version b of library B is in unstable before I can
> > upload version a of package A?
> No, you can upload it whenever you want. It won't get into testing
> before it's ready, but that's not all that different than the current
> case, is it?
How can I upload version a of package A when it doesn't compile in testing
that includes only an old version of library B, do you want to produce
tons of failed builds on the autobuilders?
> > 2. Consider the case that of a library package foo there's now the libfoo1
> > package in testing and the libfoo2 package in unstable (the so-name has
> > changed). As long as there's ONE package in testing that depends on
> > libfoo1 and isn't recompiled against libfoo2 in unstable the foo package
> > in unstable won't make it into testing because this would cause broken
> > dependenies in testing (one of the problems testing tries to avoid).
> > Please tell me how the new foo package can ever make it into testing when
> > all the packages that depend on it are built against testing.
> I don't follow. Why would two different versions of a library not be
> allowed into testing simultaneously--it happens all the time. If they
> *can't* be installed simultaneously it's a bug--and one that would be
> better to catch *before* it gets to testing.
The two library packages don't conflict, but they are built from the same
source package - that means when you upgrade the source package in testing
you have to remove the old binary package in testing (or there would be
a binary package without it's source in testing).
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi