On 20/05/2008, Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 02:04:38PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > If the exact versioning happened only in binaries then releasing an > > updated package would require rebuilding all the packages that depend > > on it. As there is already a policy for this in Debian that requires > > that the release of the rebuilt package changes you get pretty much > > the same result but spare some bandwidth and headaches because new > > sources for everything do not have to be distributed. > > > Bandwidth: I don't know if this is a typical case or not, but for arrows > 0.3-2 (picked at random) du shows that the debs for all arches comes to > 6864k while the source is 24k. The dsc and diff.gz alone, which is all > that would be needed for a security upload, is a mere 12k. Even if a > mirror is only carrying amd64, that's still 556k of debs, which dwarfs > the source upload. > > Headaches: Strict dependencies make it much easier to get things right. > You no longer have to worry about manually sequencing builds, because > the dependencies handle it for you. From where I'm sitting, they mean > many fewer potential headaches. > Maybe I am missing something but I do not see any reason why the builds would need manual sequencing. Once you remove the broken package no package that depends on it is installable until it is rebuilt.
Still if you find it easier to make the sources with strict dependencies, and there is an easy way to change the dependencies to match the currently installed packages it's fine with me. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ debian-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://urchin.earth.li/mailman/listinfo/debian-haskell
