Re: update_excuses.html
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 06:50:22PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:43:25PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 05:30:26PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > > there is also libtool. it *is* a valid candidate but does not go into
> > > testing. it is blocking a lot of software and i don't understand why :(
> >
> > Because when it goes in, libltdl0 will be removed. This will break a
> > few packages (I sent an earlier mail to this list about it).
> >
> why it should be removed? does libltdl3 conflict with libltdl0?
No, but they are built from the same source -- libtool. And there can
only be one source version in the archive at any one time, so when the
new source goes in, the old source is removed, and its binaries go
with it.
This is a source of considerable problems for the testing model, in fact.
What would be the negative consequences of allowing old source to
persist in the case where it generated some binaries which aren't
generated by the new source? (optimally, only if there were already
things in testing which depeneded upon them)
I can see it means more work for the ftp masters: all such removals
would have to be done by hand. But that job could fall to the release
manager, I guess?
Why else does this idea suck?
Jules
Reply to: