On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > One might argue that the static case is actually better because it is > more predictable, but our post-release support model is heavily > dependent on minimal changes (because we cannot do full QA > post-release). Such minimal changes are impossible with static > linking, unless we aggressively recompile and relink reverse > dependencies as soon as possible, so that we have no lingering > outdated copies in a release. > > I hope this clarifies things a bit.
With Built-Using, we get a way to rebuild packages that embed parts of other packages: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-built-using Not sure if the buildd stuff will automatically schedule rebuilds or if we will notice due to britney knowing about b-u and blocking testing migrations, anyone got more details about b-u? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Hwa6BiFqJ_NdR=EN4nR5pVsd45gz3Za7=avu0kx_z...@mail.gmail.com
