Re: testing, unstable, and dependencies
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:14:07AM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> But generally it would be better attacked if developers would care
> for flexibility. Packages should at least be compilable on testing
> and unstable whenever possible. I see tendencies going in the other
> direction, and I consider this as really bad.
Build-Depends: foo (>> 4)
And testing has foo 3.
I guess you are talking about things like debhelper... funny, me too.
Are you proposing that developers should hold back/wait until the
version with the required features hits testing? I see only limited
Packages in testing should be buildable with stuff in testing, but I
don't think that's what you meant.
PS: Yes, I know, there is a debhelper (>> 4) in testing. That's not