Re: Uncoordinated upload of the rustified librsvg
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 13:04:25 +0100
- From: Samuel Thibault <sthibault@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Uncoordinated upload of the rustified librsvg
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packages, changes were done to expose the proper out-of-date version to
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
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.