> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
> > libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
> > documentation. Was there a reason?
Uploading libfoo2 and making libfoo1 disappear are actually done by
different people. Removal of obsolete binaries is done by the ftpteam,
I’m putting them on the loop via Bcc, and moving the discussion to
-devel.
ftpteam, would you be open to discussing a well-defined policy about
removal of NBS libraries from unstable? Personally I couldn’t care less
about installability problems on user’s machines running unstable: my
take is that those machines should have testing in sources.list, period.
However, rendering important parts of the toolchain uninstallable is
something different.
The problem is, of course, defining the “well-defined policy”. For most
libraries an early removal has no big consequences. It would have been
tempting to have guessed that there wouldn’t be any for poppler either,
because the fact that decrufting poppler would render texlive uninstallable,
upon which a lot of packages build-depend on, needs a bit of close looking
in order to be noticed.
Cheers,
--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
