Re: Native packages, broken uploads, and debian policy
>>>>> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
Manoj> The you should not be surprised by my continued
Manoj> disagreement with your analysis.
I think you may not have read my later messages where I changed
that to "I agree".
Manoj> If nothing else, the changelog needs to be modified to
Manoj> reflect that the package was rebuilt, and certainly
Manoj> conflicts need to be introduced against the bad version
Manoj> numbers of the buggy library.
No. Not necessarily the case. The maintainer doesn't have any say over
what libraries are used when the autobuilders compile the code. This
is an autobuilder issue, and maintainers shouldn't have to do any work
if the autobuilder makes the wrong choices.
Why should the maintainer have to upload a new version of the code,
just because the libncurses5 library on sparc is broken and only
causes problems of sparc?
Or, say there is a serious problem with glibc on platform X - do you
expect maintainers of all packages to upload a new package with a new
changelog entry just so packages will compile against the new library?
Also, realize that for the above cases, the maintainer may have
compiled the package for his/her favourite platform using non-buggy
libraries, so that the actual uploaded code has no problems.
The autobuilders can already handler this situation fine (from what I
have heard) - don't change it.
Manoj> I see no need to introduce a whole new syntax for
Manoj> packages to accomplish this; we already have a means for
Manoj> decoupling the packaing code from the rest of the code.
See my latter message - I am not disagreeing with you.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: