Re: [Pkg-libvirt-maintainers] Why did you upload netcf 0.2.2 to SID after the freeze?
On 11/19/2012 06:37 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
> It doesn't conflict with the version in experimental.
That's correct, sorry. I miss-read version numbers.
> Although a breaks
> would be prefereable over a conflicts. I'd prefer uploading 1.0.0 to
> sid rather than reverting the netcf change.
Well, for me (and probably many others), it would have been better to
keep version 0.1.9-2 of netcf in Sid.
The current problem is isolated to installing libvirt0, because
libnetcf1 reverse dependencies are only libvirt0 (and python-libvirt).
However, apt-rdepends -r libvirt0 gives the following list:
- condor (>= 7.8.2~dfsg.1-1+deb7u1)
- eucalyptus-nc (>= 3.1.0-9)
- gnome-boxes (>= 3.4.3+dfsg-1)
- libguestfs-tools (>= 1:1.18.10-1)
- libguestfs0 (>= 1:1.18.10-1)
- libsys-virt-perl (>= 0.9.12-2)
- libvirt-glib-1.0-0 (>= 0.0.8-1)
- libvirt-ocaml (>= 0.6.1.2-1)
- python-libvirt (>= 0.9.12-5)
- ruby-libvirt (>= 0.4.0-1)
- virt-top (>= 1.0.7-1+b1)
- virt-viewer (>= 0.5.4-1)
- xenwatch (>= 0.5.4-3)
That's 13 packages, in which probably, an upload will have to be done in
Sid to fix who-knows-why. If you upload a new libvirt0 to Sid, then how
do you expect these to be updated in Wheezy thanks to an upload in Sid?
In any way, an upload of a newer libvirt version in Sid should be
coordinated with the release team, especially during the freeze. And at
this point, I'd bet that they would (rightly) refuse.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: