On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:03:17PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:59:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Joseph, I'm really sorry about this, but the time when you get to make
> > ABI changes like this really is over.
> The current SDL packages are unreleasable.
No, not really. They have a bug which should be fixed, but not at the cost
of an ABI change.
> Have you taken a look at the reverse dependencies for SDL recently?
Why, have they changed signficantly in the last few months?
> ...
Apparently not.
> Shall we then remove ALL OF THAT from woody because a non-incompatible ABI
> change is too much to ask for and the package been in need of a maintainer
> for so long?
So, we've gone from ``This undoes the changes Branden made back
in October .. apps using SDL MAY NEED TO BE RECOMPILED'' to
``non-incompatible''. Tell me when we get to ``full binary compatibility''
Also tell me when we've gotten from ``it's PROBABLY NOT my fault'' and
``I have no idea how these packages will behave on non-i386'' to ``I've
made absolutely sure nothing breaks on all arches releasing with woody''.
And lose the damn caps.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
Attachment:
pgpkdOYWmoRIW.pgp
Description: PGP signature