On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:43:51PM +0300, Dan wrote: > > It's not only about the archive topology, but mainly for packaging consistency. > > If foo-bin works fine for gutsy and hardy why would you have to > > rebuild it and in case it doesn't work as expected in a later series > > the issue should be fixed and documented as a new version of the > > It would be useful to have a different binary for Hardy (even when the > Gutsy binary works) in the cases when Hardy provides updated libraries > that the package uses. Say libfoo1 is available both in Gutsy and > Hardy, but Hardy also provides libfoo2. The source package may not > care (it requires either libfoo1 | libfoo2). But the Gutsy .deb cannot > depend on libfoo2 (only libfoo1 is available on Gutsy), while the > Hardy .deb can. So two .deb's would be very beneficial. You should bring this up in the Ubuntu community; the issue above is basically us enforcing their policy (very simplistically, no bin-NMUs). -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3376 0125
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)