On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: > > El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe: > > What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and > > the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would > > not make the path of the package into stable shorter? [...] > On the other hand, if you upload for unstable something which depends > on libc6 >= 2.2 (because it was compiled under stable) and nothing else, > it is certainly not a bug that you can use the package with libc6_2.3. > > I prefer compiling under stable when I can (i.e. when the libraries > used by the package have not been declared deprecated in unstable) > because that way I can point an i386 user to the latest version of a > given package by giving the URL and he/she can install it immediately > under stable without having to upgrade libc6.
Hrm... I've recently overheard the conversation of two users of my non-yet-in-Debian piece of software, one of whom mentioned to the other that he can't use the .deb package I provided on the SourceForge site because it uses libc6.3.1 (and thus is useless for the bulk of Debian users). I had compiled it on my testing box without realizing the problem -- and of course neither of the bastards made a bug report. Thus the lesson is, you need _both_ a stable and an unstable chroot: * the unstable one for uploading to Debian * the stable one for SourceForge, public apt repositories, etc 1KB /-----------------------\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows! \-----------------------/ Segmentation fault (core dumped) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
