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.
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