On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 17:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:57:36PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > Well, I think the factor there is that we "usually" want users to upgrade > > > to > > > the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't > > > auto-upgrade to the new API. > > > Okay, then what about octave, another empty package which forced an > > incompatible auto-upgrade from octave2.0 to octave2.1, and now to 2.9? > > Probably depends on how incompatible the upgrades are.
I've only worked with octave a bit, but such upgrades have bit me on all of the .m files I've written. I'd say roughly similar backward compatibility to PETSc-linked source. There's a larger user community for octave, but that's why I don't put multiple PETSc versions in Debian simultaneously. > BTW, the other big reason for linux-image-2.6-$flavor metapackages is that > they provide a hook for debian-installer, so the installer doesn't have to > be futzed with in 5 places every time there's a kernel update. Okay, fair enough. > > And come to think of it, the python-dev python version consistency > > argument doesn't really apply to anyone running a single distribution, > > because the "python" version in that distribution is automatically > > identical to the "python-dev" version. The only way this "guarantee" of > > the same pythonx.y-dev and python -> pythonx.y actually does anything is > > if an admin somehow attempts to shoehorn the woody python with the sarge > > python-dev onto the same system, and how likely is that? > > So you're suggesting that people who package python tools should be ok with > having to update their build-dependencies as part of every python > transition, even when nothing else in their package needs to change? (This > also has implications for backports and cross-ports, mind you...) No, I'm merely saying that the versioning in the python dep is irrelevant because python-dev and python will automatically have the same version in every Debian release. As for what should be OK, two scenarios: (1) empty upgrade packages are good, so people build-dep on python-dev, which depends on python; (2) empty upgrade packages are bad, so people build-dep on "python2.3-dev | python-dev", the latter of which is a virtual package provided by python*-dev. No need to change the python-dependent package. > > Again, the point is that these are all over Debian, and it's > > inconsistent to accept all but one. > > I don't think anyone has been proposing an inconsistent guideline, here. > I'll grant you that these guidelines probably haven't been *applied* > consistently in the past, but that's not the same thing. Makes sense. Can someone please write the guideline somewhere, preferably in policy, so we can apply it? Thanks, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
