Hello,
Decklin Foster wrote:
> Excerpts from Vincent Fourmond's message of Sat Mar 21 10:55:37 -0400 2009:
>
>> I must say that I strongly disagree with this statement: every package
>> must be built against packages found in unstable. Not with the personal
>> packages you built on your computer, *even if they are in NEW* ! So this
>> package is broken, and it shouldn't be.
>>
>> Please, pretty please, don't upload broken software to unstable ! Use
>> a chroot to build the packages you upload - or, if you have depend on
>> the newer libmpd, wait before uploading.
>
> No. This is *why* testing and the buildds exist -- we can track whether
> or not packages are buildable and installable with *software*. You are
> asking me to do it by hand.
No, I'm not asking you do do it by hand: dpkg-shlibdeps is doing it
for you. It picked up the wrong dependency because you build-depend on
and build against a library not (yet) in unstable. unstable is not there
for being broken without reason, experimental is.
Sometimes, unstable gets broken because of transitions. But in this
case, this is just carelessness from your side: you should not
build-depend on a library not in unstable, and upload the resulting
package. As a side effect, buildds are choking on the package. They are
not here to choke on careless build-deps, but to build the archive.
Sometimes, often, they do choke for *real* porting problems. But that
isn't the case here. You're imposing an extra load on the buildds for
something you *know* won't work.
Experimental is where you have fun. Well, all that does not really
matter.
Regards,
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
The Librarian was, of course, very much in favour of reading in
general, but readers in particular got on his nerves.
-- Terry Pratchet, Men at arms
Vincent, listening to Penitent (Suzanne Vega)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
