| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:37:22 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Few months ago I have written a small FAQ on how to use slots |
| 6 |
>> and subslots for library dependencies properly [1]. However, today |
| 7 |
>> I see that most of the developers didn't care to properly update their |
| 8 |
>> packages and when I introduced binary compatibility slot in libgcrypt, |
| 9 |
>> I had my hands full of work fixing the mess for a single package. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> How about you file a tracker bug report for each library package, and |
| 12 |
> then file bug reports per package using that dependency blocking the |
| 13 |
> tracker bug? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That is certainly the conservative way to handle this, and it seems |
| 17 |
like a lot more work. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This seems like a QA project. Perhaps we could get the QA team to make |
| 20 |
a couple for decisions? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Firstly, do you agree that we should migrate library dependencies as |
| 23 |
mgorny has described? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Secondly, can we grant developers the license to make these changes |
| 26 |
outside of the normal "file-a-bug" workflow as an efficiency measure? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If there are any reasonable objections (besides maintainer |
| 29 |
territorial-ism), of course the QA team should consider them. |
Archives