On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:36:37PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Graham Wilson wrote: > > I don't know if I agree with the idea of building against testing > > (though I believe that is not exactly what you said). > > I indeed said exactly that: always build against what has already > made it to Testing.
That doesn't work. If a library changes soname in unstable without changing its source package name (which is common practice), then you need to rebuild everything that depends on it in unstable *before* the new library is updated in testing, otherwise the upgrade of the library will break the packages depending on it, which testing does not allow. Some strange special-casing arrangement is just about conceivable, but would make an already complicated system even more complicated and difficult for developers to understand when things go wrong. This has been discussed many, many times on -devel. Followups to -devel, please, but read the archives first so that we can avoid endlessly retreading old ground. > > The first could be addressed by individuals committing time and > > machines to build for experimental. I can volunteer to build for > > alpha, i386, mips (soon), and powerpc. > > Why can't everything just be cross-compiled on a _really_ fast 64-bit > host belonging to the Debian project? It's evident that you've never read any previous discussion on this subject. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
