Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 01.09.2011, 15:04 +0100 schrieb Iulian Udrea: > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 20:14 +0100, Iulian Udrea wrote: > > Dan Doel has just uploaded vector-algorithms 0.5.3 with the following > > dependencies: primitive (>= 0.3 & < 0.5), vector (>= 0.6 & < 0.10). I'm > > updating the remaining packages now. > > What is the best practice for upgrading packages that are dependencies > of other packages? In this case, if we upload vector, then we have to > upload the newest version of primitive (0.4.0.1) and then either upgrade > (if there are new upstream releases) the rest of the packages that have > as dependencies primitive or vector or binNMU them. > > Should we wait for a transition to happen and then upgrade them or go > with scheduling binNMUs (for packages that don't have newer upstream > releases) so that we won't end up with broken packages in the archive. > > I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me a tad about this. NMUs. They are easy to schedule using the haskell-pkg-debcheck tool in in our tools/ repository, and thanks to autosigning now don’t even require human intervention by anyone else. I have access to the wanna-built database for scheduling binNMUs for Haskell, so you can just ping me (via the mailing list) that there is a need to binNMUs, and I can run the script and schedule the binNMUs. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part