[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: No libtiff transition for sarge

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

Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: