On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 12:25:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 09:58:06AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > >... > > or revert that madness > > of forcing all your reverse depends to depend on gnutls28 just because > > there are a few new enum members they _might_ have used - it's doing > > more harm then good, and it's not standard practice. > > This is actually good practice, if in doubt our dependencies should > always err on the safe side. > > Imagine software like apt would have gotten a too low dependency and > then migrated before gnutls to testing. > > Or even worse, due to a too low dependency apt would have been upgraded > during the first step of an oldstable->stable upgrade, but not gnutls. > > In this specific case the higher dependency might not be required for > apt specifically, but really bad practice would be risking breakage > for our users by not setting the dependency strict enough.
The tooling is just suboptimal for these cases. I think essentially in most cases raising the depends is wrong - if something used newer features it would build-depend on newer versions, and run-time depends should be max version of (build-depends on dev package, symbols of runtime package) or something like it to make this easier to manage, and avoid something with impact similar to a transition. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en