On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Rik Theys wrote: > On 06/29/2012 10:31 PM, micah anderson wrote: > >After getting the go ahead from the maintainers, I uploaded > >dovecot-antispam and dovecot2 to BPO yesterday. Because dovecot-antispam > >is already in BPO, it was accepted right away, the dovecot2 packages are > >waiting in NEW. > > > >The dovecot-antispam package has strict version dependence. This means > >that it only works with the version of dovecot that it was built > >against. I built it on my amd64 machine against the 2.1.17 version that > >is pending in BPO's NEW right now. However, what ended up happening is > >that the BPO autobuilders picked it up and built it against stable > >dovecot1. > > > >So right now the dovecot-antispam package in BPO is somewhat useless, > >it doesn't work with dovecot1 or dovecot2 (unless you are on an amd64 > >machine, in that case it works for dovecot2). > > > >The question is, do we go ahead with letting dovecot2 into BPO, and then > >do binNMUs on dovecot-antispam to make it work with dovecot2? > > Is it not possible to put the dovecot-antispam back and create a > dovecot2-antispam package that works with the new dovecot2 package? I am usually against those plans. Backports are done from testing, and testing does not have such a package. Therefore there is not testing and so on, if the source introduces some exotic incompatibility with dovecot1 nobody will detect it until it is in backports.
Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org