Mattia Rizzolo, le dim. 04 nov. 2018 10:40:01 +0100, a ecrit: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 09:04:49PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > What is the actual consequence of the latest librsvg being unbuildable > > on those arches? The old binaries won't automatically be removed > > there, right? > > In this case not, but be aware that the archive software used in Debian > Ports doesn't have support for "cruft", which means that if a package > bumps its soname the old binaries are removed as soon as the last source > package building them disappear.
AFAIK the decruftification is still manual, the archive software does provide the different versions for different archs. Even for arch:all packages, changes were done to expose the proper out-of-date version to proper archs. But ftp-master doesn't like lingering packages :) > > Instead of putting all the blame on the GNOME team, maybe you could > > have expressed your concerns during the months that librsvg was still > > in experimental? > > I at least had that impression even while being a bystander. I do > recall Adrian mumbling about how annoying rust was for ports and I even > recall some discussion involving rsvg in it several months ago. > You really didn't understand that rsvg was a concerns for the ports > architectures? I don't think this question is useful. One indeed doesn't always realize the consequences one's actions, one can't blame somebody for that, shit just happens :) Let's just work on finding a workable solution. Samuel
