On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:20:01PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Steve Langasek dijo [Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 07:08:49PM -0700]: > > > I just NMUed libembperl-perl, after finding out it would kill some of > > > my systems on upgrade from Sarge. The bug it fixes (#395870) was not > > > marked as RC only as -I think- an oversight from the maintainer, and > > > is quite trivial: I just rebuilt the package against the current > > > Apache2/mod_perl2 packages (i.e. after the 2.0->2.2 transition).
> > Shouldn't this simply have been done as a binNMU? Alternatively, should > > ilbemperl-perl have a versioned dependency on apache2, instead of just a > > recommends? > Well, a rebuild should be carried out in every architecture - And it > should be done against the current versions. And once updated, it will > be incompatible with the previous versions (I'm unsure which is the > one which complicts, if it is apache2 or libapache2-mod-perl2). I > think it's cleaner to do a regular source NMU. I disagree, given that there were no changes to the package's dependencies that would enforce co-installation with a particular version of apache2. > About Apache2: Well, it can work with Apache 1.3.x as well. It can > even work offline (I use it offline in one app, now that I think of > it). So, strictly, it depends on nothing but Perl. Indeed, so in that case I actually think this bug is not RC. But I've now found that the package is failing to build on autobuilders, and have filed bug #416016 about this. If we can't get the package autobuilt, then we certainly can't have it built for a particular apache2 in etch... Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
