Marco van de Voort wrote: >> They can't do that without breaking all other packages in the archive >> using this package. They don't get rebuilt automatically AFAIK, and >> that's where the difference is IMHO. > > I don't understand this. Afaik there is no difference at all. Could you be > more elaborate in what you think would go wrong automatically?
My view of source based distributions (in the general software sense) is that when a package maintainer uploads a new library version (changing the library name correctly according to that distro's packaging rules) then all dependent software is automatically recompiled for the new version (and name), and thus no one notices any breakages. Except 3rd parties like us. For a binary distribution like debian, if a package maintainer uploads a (binary) package with different containing library name, bug reports will be compiled due to other packages being broken now. This package thus cannot transition to the 'testing' (RC) debian distribution, and the only possible fix is to revert the package name to the old one. Micha _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
