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. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
