On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 11:45:16AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 05/07/14 08:48, Niko Tyni wrote:
> I have thought a bit more about this. I was hesitant as there are lots of > packages involved, but thinking more about it, this should be pretty smooth. > You > add perlapi-5.18.2d to perl-base's Provides, but you won't remove > perlapi-5.18.1 > or perlapi-5.18.2. Then perl-base can migrate immediately, and all the > rebuilds > can migrate as well. Then after the rebuilds are done, you can remove > perlapi-5.18.1 and perlapi-5.18.2 from Provides. I'm not very enthusiastic about this. It's basically lying: we don't offer the old ABI anymore so we should be straight about it. An uninstallable package seems better than a broken one. But I can see it would help the transition, and it wouldn't cause a regression, it would just make the fix take longer. So yes, I can do that if you want. > > What do we do with packages that fail to build? Remove the old s390x > > binaries from testing? The source packages are going to cause trouble > > for the 5.20 transition too, of course... > > For leaf packages, we could possibly remove them. But why not just fix them > wherever possible? Do you expect many FTBFS? Sure, fixing them is certainly preferrable :) It's just that I've recently rebuilt the same set of packages for the 5.20 transition and ISTR encountering quite a few known long-standing FTBFS bugs. I suppose those packages aren't in testing anymore, though; I didn't look at that part much in my tests. -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
