Re: DO NOT REMOVE the lib packages after updates
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:12:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> 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?
>> > I'm not sure. What is the advantage over doing the same thing with
>> > s/unstable/testing/ and s/experimental/unstable/ ?
>> Breaking unstable for possibly weaks and preventing any new packages
>> (that depend on the lib) from entering sarge.
> These sorts of problems are trivial to fix; if the maintainer leaves his
> package broken for a week or more, and its breakage is interfering with the
> release, then it should be an NMU candidate.
> - mdz
For API changes fixing it might not be easy. For pure ABI changes you