On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 23:46 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:53:12PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > With this mail, I would like to protest the uncoordinated upload of the rustified > > version of libsrvg to unstable. "Uncoordinated upload" is a term normally used for library ABI transitions that aren't coordinated with the release team. That is not what happened here. > > The maintainer of the package knows very well that > > this particular package has a huge number of reverse dependencies and would cause > > a lot of problems with non-Rust targets now. He also knows very well that I am very > > much interested in Debian Ports and a lot of efforts have been invested there. > > Perhaps we should quickly upload a revert, using the last good version of > librsvg, before things degrade? Effectively removing librsvg on 11 archs > (not counting non-official ones) stops any GUI there. Including proverbial > fvwm. librsvg doesn't appear to be a hard dependency for fvwm. > A regression of this scale shouldn't be done lightly. So what about > reverting it now so things don't degrade, then having a flamewar what to do? We already know what to do, which is to prioritise our upcoming release and the architectures that will be included in it. We do not allow Debian ports to hold back changes in unstable. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part