* Stephen Gran [Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:50:43 +0000]:
> I'm not sure, which is why I was asking. I can see two arguments - one
> that we should just move on from the broken version(s) of the library,
> and another that the packaging should be made robust enough that it
> doesn't try to accidentally build against a known broken version of
> the library (i.e., fixing Build-Depends to be more strictly versioned).
> Both arguments make sense to me, but I'll leave it up to RMs to decide
> which is better for the archive.
Library bugs in unstable are transient, so I don't think such
information belongs in the Build-Depends line of reverse dependencies,
no, at least not in the common case.
If, say, a library bug doesn't cause packages to FTBFS, but introduces
buggy code in the resulting binary that does "rm -rf /", then a
Build-Conflicts or an updated Build-Depends may be in order, yes. ;-)
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
- Why are you whispering?
- Because I just think that no matter where she is, my mom can hear this
conversation.
-- Rory and Lane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
