Re: DO NOT REMOVE the lib packages after updates
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
>> #include <hallo.h>
>> * Matt Zimmerman [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 11:13:15PM]:
>>
>> > > * Josselin Mouette [Mon, Jul 12 2004, 06:16:01PM]:
>> > > > Are you asking to have a new source package at each SONAME change?
>> > >
>> > > Exactly.
>> >
>> > It's not sane to do this.
>>
>> So it is sane to fuckup a dozen of dependent packages that rely on your
>> library? Without warnings? I think every library package maintainer should
>> realize that it is not only his lib package and maybe the few client
>> packages that he is responsible for - he shares the responsibility for the
>> state of all packages directly depending on this library.
>
> This is unstable we are talking about. That's where packages may be broken
> in order to accomplish a goal.
>
> Yes, it seems much more sane to me to simply remove the package and force a
> transition, than to add complexity by trying to make the old and new
> binaries available simultaneously in unstable.
Would you advocate uploading libraries with new soname to experimental
and getting all reverse depends build against it (also in
experimental) so that a transition can then be pushed through within
days?
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: