Re: Please consider quantlib_0.3.9 (and -ruby,-python,-doc) for testing

[Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>]

On 14 May 2005 at 17:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
| > I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. 0.1.11 is _broken_ as it needs QL 0.3.8.
| > Given that we settled on QL 0.3.9 we do need 0.1.12.  See below for a log.
| 
| Ah.  Please fix the missing dependency on quantlib, then, and I'll push it
| in.

Yes, I will look into that and let you know when I have a working copy.

| > But I welcome the release teams view on this. If you guys all state that I
| > should really have hard depends, I will change my mind on this. Feedback welcome!
| 
| Packages absolutely are expected to have dependencies that reflect, to the
| best of the maintainer's knowledge, the requirements for the use of the
| package.  If it's known in advance that certain ABI changes will break
| binary compatibility for dependent packages, the dependencies should be
| structured to prevent packages from being installable but not usable.
| 
| This is important to ensure both smooth transitions in testing, and
| successful partial upgrades between stable releases.
| 
| I would greatly prefer that you come to the release team when something
| needs to be hinted, rather than letting broken package combinations sneak
| into testing.  This should certainly be an easier case of hinting than most
| libraries anyway.

Will do for quantlib-ruby, quantlib-python and r-cran-quantlib which may then
linger longer in unstable but should not again be broken in testing.  I agree
that is in fact a bad idea.

Thanks, Dirk

-- 
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he 
predicted yesterday didn't happen today.  --  Laurence J. Peter