[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 20:56 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > As you could see in my message, I did ask Joerg again, but with no reply
> > for a week, so nobody but Joerg knows what I did or didn't convince him
> > of.
> Well, I'm not Joerg, but based on the evidence of rejects/accepts and my
> understanding of policy and actual practices, it is my understanding that
> - the meta packages probably are the main rejection cause,
> - parallel installability of -dev-Packages is not an issue Debian cares
>   about except for the most popular packages,
> - (this doesn't directly relate to the rejection, but nonetheless) the
>   use of the alternatives system is probably a bad idea because it
>   leads to unexpected compilation results (essentially many developers
>   considere it a bug for a package build to produce substantially
>   different builds when run on arbitrarily chosen current unstable
>   systems),
> - versioned -dev package naming is not Joerg's preference, but when I
>   asked him about a rejection of libfoo12-dev and pointed out Junichi's
>   libpkg-guide recommendation he said he wouldn't reject for this in
>   the future.

This is good to know, thanks very much for the clarifications.  It's
unfortunate that Debian doesn't care about parallel installability of
-dev packages, given how many user communities could likely benefit
(PETSc's was started at the request of several users).

> P.S.: Should we move elsewhere from -release?

Sure, Joerg and I are discussing this.  Seemed like the appropriate
place to ask when I hadn't heard any clarification in over a week.

Thanks again,
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!

Reply to: