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

Re: No libtiff transition for sarge



On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:32:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Could anyone explain how this could work in practice?

> Since in both cases the version would be higher than the one currently 
> in unstable, a package compiled with 1.0 would be allowed to use 0.7 .

> You could add versioned conflicts for current users of libgpg-error0 in  
> unstable and update the build dependencies of such packages using 
> libgpg-error0.

This works because so far, none of the packages rebuild against
libgpg-error0 *use* libgpg-error0 -- it is a spurious dependency.

Jose is right that the packages which currently are blocked by the new
libgpg-error0 in unstable should be uploaded with a fixed libtool; but
he is wrong if he thinks this excuses introducing such major changes
while we are preparing for a release.  Jose, please re-upload
libgpg-error 0.7 with either an epoch or a "1.0-really-0.7" version
as Goswin has suggested.  Or, if you don't have time for this, please
indicate which of these you prefer and I'll NMU according to your
wishes.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: