Web lists-archives.com

Re: Uncoordinated upload of the rustified librsvg

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps we should quickly upload a revert, using the last good version of
> librsvg, before things degrade?  Effectively removing librsvg on 11 archs
> (not counting non-official ones) stops any GUI there.  Including proverbial
> fvwm.

It sounds to me like you're saying that to fix librsvg being out of
date on 11 arches, we need to make it out of date on every

What is the actual consequence of the latest librsvg being unbuildable
on those arches? The old binaries won't automatically be removed
there, right?

As I mentioned in #debian-devel, librsvg is a security-sensitive
library. The Debian GNOME team has long wanted a supported version of
librsvg to be buildable on all release architectures in time for the
Buster release to ease the maintainability burden on the Security team
(as well as benefiting from some hardening improvements).

I didn't and don't mean to upset you. It honestly didn't occur to me
that I ought to talk to ports maintainers before uploading packages
that won't build on ports.

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? Or maybe you could have said "Rust is now available
on all release architectures, but please talk to us before uploading a
rustified library." While today's upload was apparently a surprise, I
don't think it should have been a surprise that this upload was


Jeremy Bicha