On 11 March 2009 at 12:55, Adeodato Sim wrote:
| > 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
Just to be clear here:
I don't care about "installability on user's machines" either
but I DO care about the fact that Debian unstable as a whole is FTBFS
which I don't find too acceptable. Now, stuff happens, Norbert is on it, and
hopefully this will be over soon.
But yes, some "policy" or guideline to avoid it next time this arises would
be welcome.
| take is that those machines should have testing in sources.list, period.
Not the point. We broke all pbuilders.
| However, rendering important parts of the toolchain uninstallable is
| something different.
Indeed.
| 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.
Not if you maintain a number of packages depending on *tex :)
Cheers, Dirk
--
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
