On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 09:04:49PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > It sounds to me like you're saying that to fix librsvg being out of > date on 11 arches, we need to make it out of date on every > architecture.
"out of date" has a specific meaning in the context of buildds: it means
that the latest version is not built. Reverting back to a previous
version of librsvg would actually make all the arches "up to date" in
that lingo.
> What is the actual consequence of the latest librsvg being unbuildable
> on those arches? The old binaries won't automatically be removed
> there, right?
In this case not, but be aware that the archive software used in Debian
Ports doesn't have support for "cruft", which means that if a package
bumps its soname the old binaries are removed as soon as the last source
package building them disappear.
> Instead of putting all the blame on the GNOME team, maybe you could
> have expressed your concerns during the months that librsvg was still
> in experimental?
I at least had that impression even while being a bystander. I do
recall Adrian mumbling about how annoying rust was for ports and I even
recall some discussion involving rsvg in it several months ago.
You really didn't understand that rsvg was a concerns for the ports
architectures?
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
