Re: Package Reorganisations
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 03:12:04PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Anthony> You'll note it's not available in unstable though, and
> Anthony> that libssl09 is built from openssl sources. So if
> Anthony> libssl09 were to remain in woody when openssl is updated,
> Anthony> it'll no longer be buildable from source, which would be
> Anthony> bad. Hence if openssl gets updated, libssl09 will be
> Anthony> removed, just like it is in unstable.
> Oh, so any packages removed from unstable will eventually
> automatically get removed from testing too.
Right: packages get removed from testing when:
(a) their source isn't in testing (this doesn't happen often)
or
(b) their source isn't in unstable, and nothing in testing depends
on them
> Do the auto-builders realize that a package relies on out-of-date
> libraries and automatically rebuild?
The people running the auto-builders do every now and again.
> If so, what happens to the version number of the resultant *.deb file
> (this probably touches on a point I raised in another thread today)?
Normal maintainer updates should have version 1.2-3 (eg)
Non-maintainer uploads should have version 1.2-3.1
Binary only updates (no source changes) should have version 1.2-3.0.1
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Reply to: