On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 11:29:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > I looked into upgrading webmock to a more recent version. The current > version in Debian is 1.22.6-1, with a number of versions released since > then[1]. I tried to package version 3.0.1, but unfortunately, there has > been some incompatible changes, and the following > reverse-build-dependencies fail to build with 3.0.1: > > [1] https://rubygems.org/gems/webmock/versions > > berkshelf > gist > ruby-flowdock > ruby-gemnasium-gitlab-service > ruby-influxdb > ruby-license-finder > ruby-mixlib-install > ruby-omniauth-crowd > ruby-rest-client > ruby-ridley > (out of 31 reverse b-deps, it's not too bad) > > I wonder what we would do about such "core" development packages. Upgrading the > leaf packages first does not work because newer versions tend to require newer > core packages, so it's a chicken-and-egg problem. > > One possible strategy could be to: > - upload the new version of webmock to unstable > - with a versioned Breaks: on the broken packages (so that it does not migrate to testing) > - file RC bugs given those packages now FTBFS in unstable The problem is that Breaks: is supposed to be between binary packages, and the existing binaries for those reverse build-dependencies are not exactly really broken. Also, if you specify `Breaks: ruby-foo (<< X)`, you cannot be really sure that version X will actually fix the issue. IMO the strategy should be just 1) upload new version 2) file RC bugs against the packages that will now FTBFS in unstable
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature