Re: Numpy API change?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> It's true that upload of Numpy 1.4 wasn't done with proper care.
> However, even if we discovered the breakage earlier, we couldn't
> avoid sourceful uploads of the affected packages.
hm... may be we still could...
> BinNMUs only make sense if there is a versioned dependency that will
> force upgrades and migration in the correct order. We cannot solve the
> current situation that way: e.g. if we binNMUed python-tables, its new
> binaries would immediately migrate to testing, which would make them
> as useless as they are currently in unstable.
good point -- I did miss that while composing my "solution" email. BUT
I think here we still have two possible resolutions atm (Sandro's
proposal sounds better in the longer run) with different
trade-offs
1. binNMU with manual transition (blocking bugs or may be release team
block hints) to testing
2. sourcefull uploads with hardcoded dependency on specific version of
numpy
1. might sound like more work (filing bugs to prevent transition, and
then closing them whenever 1.4 gets into testing), but 2. involves
hardcoding of Depends, which
* also requires time
* prevents transparent backporting because those versioned depends
are there just for the sake of proper transition
sid->testing(squeeze)
1. also would have a somewhat unpleasant effect -- whenever everything
gets into testing, someone willing to upgrade only dependent package
would not automagically install numpy 1.4 so his installation might get
broken. But in the long run it should be fine
--
.-.
=------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User ^^-^^ [175555]
Reply to: