Summary - Broken dependencies in Fedora Extras - 2007-01-16
Michael Schwendt
bugs.michael at gmx.net
Tue Jan 16 23:13:51 UTC 2007
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.
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list