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

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:57:36PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Well, I think the factor there is that we "usually" want users to upgrade to
> > the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't
> > auto-upgrade to the new API.

> Okay, then what about octave, another empty package which forced an
> incompatible auto-upgrade from octave2.0 to octave2.1, and now to 2.9?

Probably depends on how incompatible the upgrades are.

BTW, the other big reason for linux-image-2.6-$flavor metapackages is that
they provide a hook for debian-installer, so the installer doesn't have to
be futzed with in 5 places every time there's a kernel update.

> And come to think of it, the python-dev python version consistency
> argument doesn't really apply to anyone running a single distribution,
> because the "python" version in that distribution is automatically
> identical to the "python-dev" version.  The only way this "guarantee" of
> the same pythonx.y-dev and python -> pythonx.y actually does anything is
> if an admin somehow attempts to shoehorn the woody python with the sarge
> python-dev onto the same system, and how likely is that?

So you're suggesting that people who package python tools should be ok with
having to update their build-dependencies as part of every python
transition, even when nothing else in their package needs to change?  (This
also has implications for backports and cross-ports, mind you...)

> Again, the point is that these are all over Debian, and it's
> inconsistent to accept all but one.

I don't think anyone has been proposing an inconsistent guideline, here.
I'll grant you that these guidelines probably haven't been *applied*
consistently in the past, but that's not the same thing.

> Joerg, the ball is in your court:

>       * There is broad consensus for versioned -dev packages (e.g.
>         Thomas Viehmann's precedent, Junichi's libpkg-guide),

No, actually, there are vocal *proponents* of versioned -dev packages.
That's not the same thing as broad consensus.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: