Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:30:11AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: >> One real problem is that epochs make it easier to introduce human >> error in specifying reverse runtime and build deps. E.g.: >> # in stable >> Package: libfoo-dev >> Version: 1:1.4.1-1 >> # in unstable >> Package: libfoo-dev >> Version: 1:1.5.5-2 >> # in unstable >> Package: bar >> Build-Depends: libfoo-dev (>= 1.5) >> The 'bar' maintainer intended to require the unstable version of >> libfoo-dev, but in fact the dependency is satisfied from stable as >> well. > > No real damage done. If it is built against 1:1.4 it will either not > work or be rejected. Also one must not build stuff for unstable against > stable anyway. > > Please show a real-world example where this breaks, not only may produce > slightly undesired results.
There is a real-world outside the buildds. My first step to get a newer package version for a stable system in the absence of an official backport is typically apt-get source foo && apt-get build-deps foo (with deb-src from unstable), followed by dpkg-buildpackage. If the first works, but the second fails because of unsatisfied build dependencies, something is definitely broken. Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo8k4tkq....@vostro.rath.org
