Re: libcurl2 7.12.0-1 breakage and its removal from unstable
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:51:04AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:03:31AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > > 1) use epoch. the easiest solution, the one i like less.
> > >
> > > 2) upload with version like 7.12.0.is.7.11.2-1. almost easy as 1)
> > > but would mean an ugly version for sarge.
> > >
> > > 3) removal of curl 7.12.0-1 from unstable.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > should 3) being not feasible i'll move with 2). i can't believe i'm
> > > going to release sarge with 0 bugs on curl and a ugly version... sob :(
> >
> > I don't see what the problem with using an epoch is; after all, this is
> > the kind of situation they seemed to be designed for. Using an epoch
> > seems like the easiest solution. Why are you opposed to using one?
>
> Or he could of just simply uploaded a new version of the package as
> libcurl3 instead of libcurl2 so everything could be recompiled against
> it.
problem is that as soon as libcurl3 hits unstable we have 48 RC bugs
of packages that need to be rebuilt against new libcurl3.
the minimum time to perform this change is the time for ftpmasters to
approve libcurl3 installation + time to rebuild and upload these 48
packages + time required to stabilize everything for testing + time to
manage the unforeseeable.
i'm currently not feeling so adventurous.
i'm considering to make available both libcurl2 7.11.2 and libcurl3
7.12.0 from the same curl 7.12.0 source package.
cheers
domenico
-----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
--[ http://people.debian.org/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Reply to: