On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:10PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:23:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:18:28PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: > > > > Understood. I wonder if there is a set of mechanical tests that would > > > > give this answer with high confidence? > > > > > > Sadly I wonder the same and I don't know how to answer. > > > > > > Actually, if even Doligez answers that "he can't guarantee that" I would > > > stay on the safe side and assume "no", but anyhow should feel free to > > > test it and try to convince us all of the contrary ... > > > > Unless things have changed lately upstream, the position upstream has > > always been that there is no binary compatibility between even point > > release, and that we should rebuild everything. This was Xavier Leroy's > > direct answer when i asked him about this back then (in the 3.08 days i > > think), and i think it is a safe bet to assume this is still the case, > > and rebuild everything. This should be relatively little work, as it > > only involved buildd time with the new binNMU scheme, no ? > > And rebuilding by hand the arch=all packages, as long as we don't have > and arch=all autobuilder. > > Since we are trying to push this release into lenny we should probably > play safe and recompile.
Also my opinion, Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
