On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:56:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > [...] > > > [1] OK, you could upload half of GNOME recompiled against an older > > > libgpg-error0 > > > Nicely spotted. Seems like libgpg-error0 somehow missed radar, another > > case for tpu, imho. > > Why is there a libgpg-error0 package uploaded 5 days ago that has bumped > shlibs when maintainers were specfically told in the release > announcement that the base freeze does NOT mean that unstable is open > for shlibs changes in base/standard? 1. Because I didn't want to change shlibs, it was only an error. 2. Because at that moment, though I realized that libgpg-error0 should be Priority: important, i didn't think about that making it base. After all my package was Priority: optional from the first upload I made, and nobody tell me otherwise. > > This looks like a candidate for being reverted immediately, before > packages start getting rebuilt against it. I can upload a new version with a shlibs stick to older version, or a package with old version. > > The following packages will already need to be re-uploaded to remove the > dependency on the incorrect libgpg-error: Most of these packages really need using a new libtool. I think that no one (or only a few of them) use any interface provided by libgpg-error -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature