On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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. No, this is not my excuse for the upload. I simply decided to do the upload two days before realizing that it was base, and when I did the real upload, changing the priority, I only think that I had my mental ok for uploading the package (without thinking on the implications for it being base). I'm very sorry for all the inconvenience I have caused. > 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. Ok, I'll upload it tonight, so it's ready for tomorrow katie run. Cheers, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature