Quoting Christian Hesse (2025-12-06 16:45:29)
Lukas Fleischer <lfleischer@archlinux.org> on Fri, 2025/12/05 18:00:
Quoting Christian Hesse (2025-12-05 07:47:23)
Did that cover all your questions?
Thanks! For the most part, yes, I think so. Two follow-ups:
1. Are we going to have [extra-unstable-staging] for rebuilds, or do we plan to have a different mechanism to handle soname rebuilds across the new repos?
Oh, good question... I have not yet had that case. We would hit it when the pre-release bumps a soname, right? So something like systemd pushing a pre-release where libudev is bumped from libudev.so.1 to libudev.so.2...
At least for the packages that I care about here these cases should be pretty rare... :-p
Based on your earlier replies, if I understand correctly, it'd also be required whenever there's a soname bump (for any package, not necessarily in -unstable) while any dependent package is in -unstable.
[...]
We may also want to build some of those into devtools as checks. Does that make sense?
Hmm, not sure. Depending on package (and impact of rebuild when required) this may vary from over-complicating to required.
FWIW, I don't think those are extremely rare corner cases once we start using -unstable more. Specifically, I'm thinking of cases where we push a new package to -testing or stable repos and forget to drop the (now older) package from -unstable. That said, I think it's reasonable to monitor and quickly fix those issues when they appear; as long as we have a good understanding of what potential issues may appear and as long as they break -unstable only.
After all this has much greater impact than expected when we want to make it complete and correctly.