Re: The png fiasco, libqt2, and GNOME
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:43:05PM -0500, steve wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 10:46:52PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > However, if the rebuilt libqt2 gets into testing before the rebuilt
> > > KDE apps, then the latter will suddenly break for everyone using the
> > > "testing" distribution. It seems prudent to hold up the migration to
> > > testing until all the packages are ready to go.
> >
> > This is not something that can be done with bugs,
>
> I don't understand why you say that.
It occurs to me now that you are probably thinking of moving
the set of packages *into* testing once they are all rebuilt,
whereas I was concentrating on keeping them *out* of testing.
I think one can easily keep them out of testing with an RC bug.
Initially, I thought it would suffice to wait ten days, then close
the bug to get everything moved into testing:
> > > Therefore, I'd like to reopen Bug #126808 on libqt2 and set its
> > > severity to "critical". I believe that would keep the new libqt2
> > > (and everything that depends on it) out of testing. When all the
> > > packages are ready, we would wait ten days (so that all the packages
> > > become candidates for "testing"), then close the bug.
Upon reflection, I see the flaw in this strategy: if one of the applications
using libqt2 has its own RC bug, that application will not migrate, and
will get broken when the updated libqt2 gets put into testing.
Tough problem. I guess forcing things manually is one way around it,
but it sounds more and more like AJ was right in suggesting that libqt2
ought to change SONAME.
Still, I think it would be wise to keep libqt2 out of testing until
this all gets worked out, one way or the other.
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Reply to: