Re: DO NOT REMOVE the lib packages after updates
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 08:17:24PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> > On lun, 2004-07-12 at 18:31 +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >> > Except in some rare cases (e.g. libpng), that's a very bad idea.
> >>
> >> And why? I just showed that it works.
> >
> > And that it bloats the archive, is a pain to maintain, not speaking of
> > the security updates.
> > --
> > .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
> > : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
> > `. `' joss@debian.org
> > `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
> It only bloats the archive during the transitional period. After all
> packages depending on the lib have been recompiled the old package can
> be removed.
> The longer that period lasts the more important having 2 packages is
> since otherwise you would have broken packages for the same amount of
> time.
The counterargument is that, without the pressure of RC bugs, the
transitional period will last longer. I think we would need to be able to
file "please recompile" bugs at RC severity to avoid compromising our
ability to get the libs section in shape for a release.
> As for security updates that's pretty easy. Remove the old lib. You
> wouldn't loose anything compared to removing it directly but you keep
> packages working as long as there is no security bug.
This does nobody any good once we have a stable release that includes the
parallel package for the old library.
And even "just remove the library" means piling more responsibility on our
straining security infrastructure that doesn't need to be there.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: