Re: Which versions of libraries are developers supposed to compile against?
>>>>> "Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> writes:
Junichi> Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk> immo vero scripsit
>> But when things start being properly, but gradually frozen,
>> presumably that simple strategy won't be sufficient. Because
>> if balsa Build-Depends on libfoo-dev, and libfoo is frozen, I
>> want the woody version of libfoo-dev, not the unstable (sid)
>> one.
Junichi> I guess using a woody chroot to build packages would be
Junichi> an idea, because presumably, you can't really downgrade
Junichi> libraries very easily.
How many times do we have to go over this? You can't effectively
control what libraries your packages are built with. At best you can
do so for the architectures you have, but for the most part the
autobuilders will build for sid when uploading to sid and there's
nothing you can do about it. We've also had the discussion about why
this needs to be the case; if you think you're going to propose having
the autobuilders build against woody for sid uploads, please go back
and read those threads.
If your library is frozen but is used by packages that are not yet
frozen, you must be very careful about what changes you make. If you
are forced to increase the shlibs dependencies above the version in
woody and do not plan on being able to convince the RM to accept your
new version, then you will screw up the ability of people who depend
on your library to continue development.
Basically once your library is frozen don't upload major changes to
unstable until the release. If you know what you are doing and fully
understand the issues involved you can actually get away with a fair
bit more, but if you screw it up, there will be angry developers
lining up to flame you.
Reply to: