On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:12:48PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time > spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt. > I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random > flamebait more than actual productive work. The problem is not rebuilding, the problem is having several dozen other packages completely blindsided by this change *with no coordination*. The Xorg 7.0 transition was presented to the release team as "no big deal, just splitting the package". Instead, it's leaving half the packages in the build queue unbuildable because of disruptive changes that no one thought worth mentioning. I agree with the principle of dropping .la files in cases where .pc files are available as a better substitute, but not without *coordinating* with people. The repeated statements from the release team that library changes should be coordinated aren't some whim of those wacky RMs that should be ignored; keeping a handle on the disruptive changes going into unstable is essential if we're going to keep the announced release schedule. So far I'm very unimpressed with the resultant bug count from the Xorg 7 transition. -- 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