On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:55:52PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
The problem is, of course, defining the “well-defined policy”. For most
libraries an early removal has no big consequences. It would have been
tempting to have guessed that there wouldn’t be any for poppler either,
because the fact
Le jeudi 12 mars 2009 à 10:08 +0200, Riku Voipio a écrit :
Perhaps it should be assumed by default that soname transitions require
source changes, _unless_ proven otherwise. And proving is really simple -
just try recompiling all reverse dependencies against the new library.
Are you
Hi Josselin,
On Do, 12 Mär 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Are you volunteering to do this work in the future for other library
transitions?
No need. If you (the devs of poppler) just warn rdepends on imminent
upload and send a pre-version for testing we can react. Fixing poppler
patches did
On 11 March 2009 at 15:35, Norbert Preining wrote:
| On Mi, 11 M r 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| but I DO care about the fact that Debian unstable as a whole is FTBFS
|
| which I don't find too acceptable. Now, stuff happens, Norbert is on it,
and
| hopefully this will be over
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
documentation. Was there a reason?
Uploading libfoo2 and making libfoo1 disappear are actually done by
On Mi, 11 Mär 2009, Adeodato Simó wrote:
because the fact that decrufting poppler would render texlive uninstallable,
Some forewarning to the Debian TeX Team would have been helpful.
Especially since the FTBFS is not easy to circumvent because that
stu poppler people have simply removed any
On 11 March 2009 at 12:55, Adeodato Sim wrote:
| On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
| libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
| documentation. Was there a reason?
|
|
On Mi, 11 Mär 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
but I DO care about the fact that Debian unstable as a whole is FTBFS
which I don't find too acceptable. Now, stuff happens, Norbert is on it, and
hopefully this will be over soon.
texlive-bin 2007.dfsg.2-5 with a fixed patch (that
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:55:52PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
documentation. Was there a reason?
As the current RM Master ;) I see two realistic possibilities:
1) Someone just write me a mail if I should some part of the cruft
report or ping me on IRC. This would of course scale to a few cases
only.
Inacceptable. The latest cruft report was done by me for example. Having
someone mail
10 matches
Mail list logo
