On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 13:14:00 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 10/08/15 12:52, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 22:15:07 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > >> There are no reverse dependencies, so maybe a transition is not needed > > > > Closing per the above. (Arguably 'snapper' is a rdep for libsnapper2, > > but oh well.) > > Sorry, I was imprecise. What I meant is that there are no reverse > dependencies outside the source package: snapper is a valid reason that > libsnapper2 should not be removed from the archive, but it is not a > reason to need a transition, because it will always stay compatible with > libsnapper2 due to being compiled in the same environment. > Not really, since nothing (in terms of package dependencies) prevents libsnapper2 from being upgraded without snapper.
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
