On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:10:41PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 12:24:38PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > > The GNOME team have been talking about what the chances are of having > > > GNOME 2.8 uploaded to unstable since it was released upstream early in > > > September. > > All right, after a good deal of discussion we think you should go ahead > > with GNOME 2.8.1, with the following provisos (some of which will be > > obvious to you, I guess): > Now, to come back on gnome 2.8 to unstable, I think it would be a good > occasion to push libxml2 and libxslt at the same time. They *are* gnome > libs, They're libs used by GNOME -- that's not the same thing as being GNOME libs, at least for this question, because they're also used by lots of *other* stuff that's not GNOMEish in the least. (Like, say, KDE.) > and they also got a lot of testing (at least libxml2), considering > how many times the libxml2 2.6.15 breakage has been reported. What breakage is that? > The only "problem", is that they have an updated shlibs, because the > libs expose more symbols, even though these symbols, as usual, are not > likely to be used by any application for a while (i.e. stuff compiled > against libxml2 2.6.16 is binary compatible with the current testing > version). Whether or not you predict anyone will be using these symbols, the problem is the same: the shlibs for the package need to be updated, which means any packages that depend on these libraries will subsequently be blocked in unstable until this package makes it into testing. Neither libxml2 nor libxslt1.1 is affected by the current freeze, and neither is complicated enough in its own right to warrant saying "no" here, but the reverse-depends tree is deep enough that you'll need to give the maintainers of those reverse-deps a heads-up, and address their concerns, before uploading. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature