On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:37:50PM +0100, Rafael Laboissière wrote: > * Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2018-01-09 20:43]: > > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Rafael Laboissière wrote: > > > > > I will upload a new version of octave-interval soon. > > > > Since there is technically no need to modify octave-interval, the > > regular procedure in this kind of situation is rather to ask for a > > give-back (see https://release.debian.org/wanna-build.html). > > I thought that it would be appropriate to update the build-dependency on > octave-pkg-dev to >= 2.0.1, but I may be wrong. I would say that the rule of thumb is to update a versioned (build-)dependency when the depending package uses a new feature or a new API provided by the dependency. Actually we generally don't bump versioned dependencies when some bug is fixed in any one the (build-)dependencies. Concretely, the only situation in which the versioned dependency would matter would be a partial upgrade from stretch to buster. The dependency of ≥ 2.0.0 will enforce the buster version of octave-pkg-dev, and is therefore useful; but bumping it to ≥ 2.0.1 will not bring any additional benefit, since buster will contain 2.0.1 (or a later version) anyways. A similar reasoning can be made about backporting Forge packages to stretch-backports. Anyways, this is really nitpicking. Feel free to do the octave-interval upload if this sounds less costly to you than requesting a give-back (I don't think buildds are overloaded these days). -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature