On 14 May 2005 at 17:45, Steve Langasek wrote: | > I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. 0.1.11 is _broken_ as it needs QL 0.3.8. | > Given that we settled on QL 0.3.9 we do need 0.1.12. See below for a log. | | Ah. Please fix the missing dependency on quantlib, then, and I'll push it | in.
Yes, I will look into that and let you know when I have a working copy. | > But I welcome the release teams view on this. If you guys all state that I | > should really have hard depends, I will change my mind on this. Feedback welcome! | | Packages absolutely are expected to have dependencies that reflect, to the | best of the maintainer's knowledge, the requirements for the use of the | package. If it's known in advance that certain ABI changes will break | binary compatibility for dependent packages, the dependencies should be | structured to prevent packages from being installable but not usable. | | This is important to ensure both smooth transitions in testing, and | successful partial upgrades between stable releases. | | I would greatly prefer that you come to the release team when something | needs to be hinted, rather than letting broken package combinations sneak | into testing. This should certainly be an easier case of hinting than most | libraries anyway. Will do for quantlib-ruby, quantlib-python and r-cran-quantlib which may then linger longer in unstable but should not again be broken in testing. I agree that is in fact a bad idea. Thanks, Dirk -- An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. -- Laurence J. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
