Re: RFC: expat transition or update - before or after lenny?
Am Dienstag, den 27.05.2008, 13:33 +0200 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> Am Montag, den 26.05.2008, 22:15 +0200 schrieb Adeodato Simó:
[..]
> > There is *however* one problematic bit already: wink. It's a package in
> > non-free that has a binary without source that links against the .0 name
> > (the build failure referred to in the Ubuntu bug report is because of
> > this). You can't rebuild that. (You can, though, get in touch with the
> > maintainer or author to see if they'd be willing to rebuild.)
>
> Now wink seems to be a problem. But because I would really like to get
> rid of this symlink, I can also imagine a different solution. I could
> provide a libexpat0-compat package, depending on libexpat1 and just
> containing the symlink. When our archive is free of packages, that rely
> on this symlink, this package can be safely dropped (depending: lenny+1
> or lenny+2). Seems SuSE used some similar solution.
Thinking again about this idea I more and more like that. It would
require a bunch of binNMUs (and probably a manual fix for wink), but
when this is done, we would also have an impression, how many packages
depend on the symlink and trying to get rid of it could be the goal for
lenny+1.
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: