On ven, nov 23, 2007 at 11:31:57 +0000, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > But I'm just not willing to fully revert a decision
Damn I wanted to answer to that, and forgot: I don't think anyone
wants a revert. I'd expect you to make lower the dpkg-shlibdeps
expectations for a while, so that we can take our time to catalog every
issues that it raise.
Then we'll go through the usual way:
(1) understand *non disruptive* warnings properly, and sort them
between the spurious issue packages will have to work around, and
the one that are usual issue that did not fit in your early
design.
(2) Take according actions and propose solutions.
(3) wait a few weeks, and if too many errors exist, go back to (1)
(4) hurray \o/ we have a manageable list of issues now, dpkg-shlibdeps
can turn his fascist pedantic mode on, without getting on
everybody's nerves.
Isn't it a better plan ? I believe it would get a 10x better reception
from the DDs, and would result in a better quality for the tool, because
choices for the fixes do not need to be done in a hurry.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgptFddr7U24F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
