Re: DO NOT REMOVE the lib packages after updates
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:54:55AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.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.
It's only trivial if the changes are only to the ABI. If they're API
changes, it may be anywhere from trivial to extremely difficult.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: