On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 20:11 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 29 December 2006 19:48, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Note that option (3) depends on upstream's ability to fix the problem > > quickly, *and* is likely to be error prone. If our priority is the > > *release*, then options (1) and (2) are the best choices. > > I miss an analysis of what other packages are involved in this plan. If > only GnuCash is involved that'd make the lower ranked options more of an > option than if the number of affected packages is unknown or expected to > be large. > I've seen this mentioned before in the thread, but IIRC no real answers. We simply don't know. However, the point of a freeze is that we don't *have* to guess. It's up to the glib maintainers, if they want a migration, to document the facts, and not simply blithely say "not a problem!" The point af a freeze is that destabilizing changes are not made, at all. Not "well, if they destabilize only a *little*". Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part