Bug#981232: unblock: perl/5.32.1-1
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:21:21PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Dominic,
>
> On 28-01-2021 22:05, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> >>> 5.32.1 would need a binnmu of a few leaf packages
> >>> (libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl
> >>> libcommon-sense-perl) as usual.
> >>
> >> Just to be clear, these binNMU's would be needed too if we would go for
> >> the cherry-pick option?
> >
> > No, the binaries relate to a change of upstream version number
> > which ends up being encoded in these packages. If we cherry pick
> > fixes, the binNMUs wouldn't be needed.
>
> But then, that relation is strictly speaking too tight? Is that
> something that can be improved (without jumping through hoops)? Maybe
> not for this time, but for future changes. Normally perl packages look
> for the perl-something-api right? Which would make it clear that this is
> no transition.
The packages in the mini-transition have a full version dependency
built into them - it's not API/ABI related. It's been a while but we've
looked at improving this before and it's not really practical given
the assumptions built into the upstream code. It's also generally
not been an issue to do the binNMUs.
> Would you have also asked us if you wouldn't have needed the binNMU's?
Yes, since https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html says
changes to build-essential may only be made with pre-approval...
Reply to: