Uncoordinated upload of the rustified librsvg

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 09:04:49PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> It sounds to me like you're saying that to fix librsvg being out of
> date on 11 arches, we need to make it out of date on every
> architecture.

"out of date" has a specific meaning in the context of buildds: it means
that the latest version is not built.  Reverting back to a previous
version of librsvg would actually make all the arches "up to date" in
that lingo.

> What is the actual consequence of the latest librsvg being unbuildable
> on those arches? The old binaries won't automatically be removed
> there, right?

In this case not, but be aware that the archive software used in Debian
Ports doesn't have support for "cruft", which means that if a package
bumps its soname the old binaries are removed as soon as the last source
package building them disappear.

> Instead of putting all the blame on the GNOME team, maybe you could
> have expressed your concerns during the months that librsvg was still
> in experimental?

I at least had that impression even while being a bystander.  I do
recall Adrian mumbling about how annoying rust was for ports and I even
recall some discussion involving rsvg in it several months ago.
You really didn't understand that rsvg was a concerns for the ports
architectures?

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20181104/5d3a8273/attachment.sig>