Re: libraries being removed from the archive
Ok, sorry for being rude in my previous mail.
I understand the general problem that you are facing with KDE and
will try in the future to announce upcomming soname changes.
Concerning the removal, I don't really see the point of not removing
older libraries from unstable. Most of the time, rebuilding the package
is enough to fix the UNINSTALLABLE problem.
My understanding of what you want is some kind of direct upload to
testing which is not the intented purpose of unstable.
Btw a new libgphoto2 is comming soon ;-)
Christophe
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:16:59PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:31:37PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > You are kidding right?
> >
> > I have not removed an old library, I have uploaded a newer upstream with
> > a different soname. That's the way it works, a new library is uploaded,
> > then packages using it are rebuilt and when they are all ready they
> > migrate in testing.
> >
> > As the gphoto2 maintainer, I don't remember getting mails from you
> > announcing an upcoming libusb package with a new soname. Perhaps that's
> > because I was waiting for a few months to get a working one for our
> > powerpc users.
> >
> > IMHO we need to make an addition to the policy stating that not being an
> > asshole on the mailing-list is welcome. I don't remember sending mails
> > to the mailing list when the libusb packaging was broken for a few
> > months, but I do remember sending you polite mails.
> >
> > For you information, some packages using libexif need libexif9.
> > I agree that I could (should) have sent a prior notice before uploading it
> > (more than a week ago, BEFORE your kdegraphics upload), but that's not
> > an excuse to be an asshole.
> >
> > Christophe
>
> You aren't the only one that has broken things, many other people
> including myself have as well, I most notably with libvorbis ;). However,
> this libusb soname change you mention last happened on Feb 27 2002,
> which was changed due to a RC bug regarding its naming. (BTW libusb's
> soname is odd, which is why I didn't catch it sooner). Also you mention
> that libusb was broken for several months, which is true, but it was
> only broken on one arch (powerpc). Also, from what I can tell from
> looking back at it by the time you determined it wasn't a bug in
> gphoto2 you NMU'd it within a week. I don't recall if I was actually
> aware of the bug before you NMU'd it.
>
> Also, I was not stating that libexif9 should not be uploaded, only that
> old libraries should not be removed from the archive until they are no
> longer used, which apparently was not the case for libexif8. I don't
> recall if I stated this earlier but each time I have uploaded KDE in the
> past several months it has been broken by library removals within about
> a week and recompiling KDE sources is not light work for the buildds.
>
> Seriously, if we want to ever release sarge we are going to need to stop
> making libraries disappear, every time we rebuild something it takes
> another 10 days for it to migrate into testing and everything that
> depends on it is also pushed back another 10 days. Even if the person
> causing the breakage NMU's all the affected packages it still causes
> them to wait another 10 days to migrate, and causes unneeded load on
> the buildds, possibly with the packages no longer being able to be
> built since gcc 3.3 is so anal now. (/me wonders how many RC bugs are
> around just for gcc 3.3 related crap)
>
> BTW - For those wondering Woody was released over a year ago...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Cheney
>
> PS - I apologize for sounding like an asshole, however this general
> problem really does need fixing.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E
Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for
what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch
Reply to: