Re: FAQ for debian-mentors
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> > El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> > the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
> > not make the path of the package into stable shorter?
> On the other hand, if you upload for unstable something which depends
> on libc6 >= 2.2 (because it was compiled under stable) and nothing else,
> it is certainly not a bug that you can use the package with libc6_2.3.
> I prefer compiling under stable when I can (i.e. when the libraries
> used by the package have not been declared deprecated in unstable)
> because that way I can point an i386 user to the latest version of a
> given package by giving the URL and he/she can install it immediately
> under stable without having to upgrade libc6.
Hrm... I've recently overheard the conversation of two users of my
non-yet-in-Debian piece of software, one of whom mentioned to the other
that he can't use the .deb package I provided on the SourceForge site
because it uses libc6.3.1 (and thus is useless for the bulk of Debian
users). I had compiled it on my testing box without realizing the problem
-- and of course neither of the bastards made a bug report.
Thus the lesson is, you need _both_ a stable and an unstable chroot:
* the unstable one for uploading to Debian
* the stable one for SourceForge, public apt repositories, etc
/-----------------------\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet,
| firstname.lastname@example.org | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
Segmentation fault (core dumped)