Steve Langasek dijo [Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 07:08:49PM -0700]: > > I just NMUed libembperl-perl, after finding out it would kill some of > > my systems on upgrade from Sarge. The bug it fixes (#395870) was not > > marked as RC only as -I think- an oversight from the maintainer, and > > is quite trivial: I just rebuilt the package against the current > > Apache2/mod_perl2 packages (i.e. after the 2.0->2.2 transition). > > Shouldn't this simply have been done as a binNMU? Alternatively, should > ilbemperl-perl have a versioned dependency on apache2, instead of just a > recommends? Hi, Well, a rebuild should be carried out in every architecture - And it should be done against the current versions. And once updated, it will be incompatible with the previous versions (I'm unsure which is the one which complicts, if it is apache2 or libapache2-mod-perl2). I think it's cleaner to do a regular source NMU. About Apache2: Well, it can work with Apache 1.3.x as well. It can even work offline (I use it offline in one app, now that I think of it). So, strictly, it depends on nothing but Perl. > Also, your NMU seems to have introduced some cruft (at least, this change > isn't documented in the changelog): > > --- libembperl-perl-2.2.0.orig/dbinitembperlapache > +++ libembperl-perl-2.2.0/dbinitembperlapache > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ > +set args -X -f /tmp/libembperl-perl-2.2.0/test/conf/httpd.conf > +r > +BT > > Please fix this latter bit. Umh... I'm away from home for the weekend - And network from here is shitty as it is. I'll try to check it tomorrow, but no real promises. ...Strange :-/ I don't know where that bit came from :-/ -- Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature