[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Summary - Broken dependencies in Fedora Extras - 2007-01-16



On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:41:38 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Tuesday 16 January 2007 16:24, Denis Leroy wrote:
> > Hmmm, so why is a binary-incompatible version of libburn being pushed so
> > late in the lifetime of FC-6 ? I have a package (brasero) that doesn't
> > compile with libburn.so.6. This is a somehwat careless dependency
> > breaking, it's not hard to check what packages are dependent on this...
> 
> Oh wow, I had no idea that anybody was actually using libburn.  My bad.
> 
> Upstream really wanted to get the new libburn/libisofs out as they've made a 
> lot of improvements.  Since we don't have any sort of updates-testing for 
> Extras, I built it for rawhide and let it sit there for a bit.  Nobody 
> complained, so I built the update for FC-6.

Just out of interest, what sort of complaints did you hope for? "brasero"
in devel is broken too for several days:

   brasero-0.5.1-1.fc7.i386  requires  libburn.so.2
   brasero-0.5.1-1.fc7.i386  requires  libisofs.so.2

   brasero - 0.5.1-1.fc7.i386    (7 days)
   brasero - 0.5.1-1.fc7.ppc    (7 days)
   brasero - 0.5.1-1.fc7.x86_64    (7 days)

> Guess I'll do a repoquery next time.

Plus announce on fedora-maintainers list (or this list) that you want to
break the ABI in FC-6. Communication like that must improve in the future.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]