Re: Status update for xulrunner 1.9 - maintainers, we need you
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 02:57:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please delay the xulrunner transition until the current gcj-4.2 and
> > gcj-4.3 are in testing
> When is that going to happen ?
> > , or else you couple the move of those packages
> > to testing to the xulrunner transition. At the same time please get
> > rid of the uninstallability issues of xul/iceape with every
> > subsubminor version upgrade as long as the package is not built on
> > every architecture.
> For the nth time, what need to be fixed is the archive. Let's not break
> packages because of the archive having problems.
For the nth+1 time, this attitude doesn't help. A delay in building
packages is hardly an archive problem. Having a new "slow" port like
armel won't change that. The problem is your packaging, to fix it:
- either make the -dev and the -common packages architecture
dependant. ftp space is not the only thing to consider when
making a decision about arch/indep packages.
- or loosen the dependencies; I hardly doubt that the dependencies
need to be as strict as they currently are. To loosen those the
package maintainer needs to monitor the upstream changes. This
is more effort, but can be done, e.g. GCC packaging is done in
a way to reduce dependencies and to ease transitions. It's more
effort in package maintainance, but helps overall.