Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:23:48 +0900, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> said:
> >
> > > And why not, instead of freezing unstable, make it build against
> > > testing, when er try to freeze testing ?
> >
> > Libraries. If you build against a library version that is no
> > longer in unstable, then you may have issues in testing when a new
> > library tries to migrate into testing -- cause nowhere would there be
> > packages built against the new library version.
>
> I don't see the point. If you build against what is in testing, there's
> no issue when migrating to testing.
Maybe you forgot that in such cases testing becomes what unstable is:
unstable. You're likely to be unable to install software because
dependencies cannot be fulfilled yet by the architecture you're
running. You've exactly won what?
> One particular issue would be when libraries change ABI, and new
> packages would need to be built against them, but still, at that
> particular time, the purpose being mainly to freeze testing, these
> ABI changes should be candidates for experimental.
Err... experimental ABI changes are for experimental. Confirmed ABI
and API changes are for unstable (or whatever you want to call the
development branch). We must not hide those changes from the future
stable distribution since it was done and confirmed upstream.
Regards,
Joey
--
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: