Hi Axel, On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 07:34:47PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > I would have been nice if this would have been done in _advance_ > instead of getting to hear in a just fixed FTBFS bug report that my > package now FTBFS due to today's ruby-ronn upload. (c.f. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=901567#35; thanks > Dmitry for that hint!)
I was aware that it would break stuff, but I saw little alternatives to just making things break: * Filing the bugs before adding the ronn package would be annoying, as those bugs would be unfixable. * Having ruby-ronn temporarily depend on ronn would introduce a dependency cycle. So the best option seemed like temporarily breaking a limited number of packages with a trivial fix. > IMHO this kind of surging ahead is not different from an uncoordinated > library transition. :-/ In a sense, yes. Next time, better package libraries properly. Helmut
