Quoting Christian Hesse (2025-12-06 16:45:29) > Lukas Fleischer <[email protected]> on Fri, 2025/12/05 18:00: > > Quoting Christian Hesse (2025-12-05 07:47:23) > > > Did that cover all your questions? > > > > Thanks! For the most part, yes, I think so. Two follow-ups: > > > > 1. Are we going to have [extra-unstable-staging] for rebuilds, or do we > > plan to have a different mechanism to handle soname rebuilds across > > the new repos? > > Oh, good question... I have not yet had that case. We would hit it when the > pre-release bumps a soname, right? So something like systemd pushing a > pre-release where libudev is bumped from libudev.so.1 to libudev.so.2... > > At least for the packages that I care about here these cases should be > pretty rare... :-p
Based on your earlier replies, if I understand correctly, it'd also be required whenever there's a soname bump (for any package, not necessarily in -unstable) while any dependent package is in -unstable. > [...] > > We may also want to build some of those into devtools as checks. Does > > that make sense? > > Hmm, not sure. Depending on package (and impact of rebuild when required) > this may vary from over-complicating to required. FWIW, I don't think those are extremely rare corner cases once we start using -unstable more. Specifically, I'm thinking of cases where we push a new package to -testing or stable repos and forget to drop the (now older) package from -unstable. That said, I think it's reasonable to monitor and quickly fix those issues when they appear; as long as we have a good understanding of what potential issues may appear and as long as they break -unstable only. > > After all this has much greater impact than expected when we want to make it > complete and correctly.
