On 20/08/25 4:41 pm, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Hi. I have uploaded 0.30.0-1 to experimental, but the amount of reverse > build dependencies (~300?) scare me. Could anyone who knows this > package look into if 0.30.0-1 would be fine for unstable? No urgency, > I'm working on packages for NEW that may end up needing this, but having > it in experimental is fine.
You can consider to check britney pseudo excuses for your package: https://release.debian.org/britney/pseudo-excuses-experimental.html It will give you some fair idea of what reverse-depends need fixing. This will however give the full picture about reverse-build-depends, i.e. if something FTBFS because of this package and is not relying on it during autopkgtests. On 21/08/25 12:15 am, Jérémy Lal wrote: > Le mer. 20 août 2025 à 20:32, Félix Sipma <[email protected]> a écrit : >> Maybe recursively building all the reverse-dependencies could be a nice >> job for debusine? There already is an issue filed for it https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/debusine/-/issues/772 > Alternatively, I've just tried to apply this: > https://salsa.debian.org/aquilamacedo/rocksdb/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/salsa-ci.yml?ref_type=heads > > to libuv1, and it gives > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libuv1/-/pipelines/913618 This is super cool, but IIRC salsa admins are not very happy with running jobs like these which will re-build a lot of packages, as it can overwhelm the runners. I'd ask them once before I do this :) Best, Nilesh
