Re: apt for jessie
On 2014-10-21 02:22, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 07:11:35PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 17/10/14 19:56, Michael Vogt wrote:
>>> we - the APT team - would like to ask for permission for a transition,
>>> namily of the apt version as found in experimental to unstable with
>>> the target of reaching jessie.
> […]
>> I think it's too late for this.
>
> I thought this for a while, too, actually, but I tend to consider
> (devil's advocate style) the alternative now to be far worse:
>
> [... snip arguments ...]
>
>
> Best regards
>
> David Kalnischkies
>
Hi David,
While I do consider your arguments compelling, the issue remains that
this /is/ a transition.
In the perfect world, I would have been willing to do it. But
transitions drags out, gets stuck etc. In fact, this particular one
starts a transition in libept as well. Despite not adding to the list
of affected packages, it is just another (potential) "point of failure".
That said, feel free to do what you can without the ABI breakage. If
some of your rdeps can be (partly) enhanced with a simple rebuild
against the new version of (API+ABI compatible) APT, I am also more than
happy to schedule binNMUs for them.
>
> [0] I don't want to sound bitter or throw dirt, but it feels kinda ironic
> that apt is punished for providing a workinprogress shared library for
> its dependencies while other tools do not to be more free in what they
> can do, while being a pain for their dependencies in return… :/
>
I can feel you pain here. I have also desired that certain tools
provided an library interface for some of their features.
> P.S.: Just to underline how serious I am about that: if it helps
> our cause I would even be willing to sign the "secret supplementary
> protocol" 'people' suggested earlier this month in #d-apt …
>
> [...]
Not familiar with said "secret supplementary protocol" and have not been
able to find it in the backlog.
~Niels
Reply to: