On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:01:06PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On Friday 06 December 2013 16:02:50 Steve Langasek wrote: > > Best practice for the case where upstream has changed ABI without changing > > SONAME is to keep the SONAME the same (for consistency with third-party > > binaries), but to change the Debian package name.
> > For past examples of this, see the C++ c2a transition; the libc5/libc6 'g' > > transition; the ldbl transition; the odbcinst1debian2 package; etc. > > While Debian could get away with doing a spot rebuild and not change the > > package name for the ABI change (since there are few revdeps and the library > > hasn't made it into a stable release), Ubuntu cannot because Ubuntu has had > > a stable release that made heavy use of qt5. As Ubuntu would like to stay > > as close as possible to Debian for Qt packaging, I (and other Ubuntu > > developers) would appreciate it if Debian did do the library package name > > change (which is per se more correct, anyway). The cost to Debian is > > fairly small for doing this, just a single round-trip through NEW, and it > > simplifies the handling of the revdeps since you don't need to add any > > versioned conflicts against each of them to ensure a consistent system. > I see your point here. And I think the only lib we would really need to > rename > is libqt5core5 to libqt5core5a. The rest depends heavily on it, so this > single > change should simply work. > Does that seems OK for you? That sounds like it meets the requirements. Note that renaming only the one package may in practice make the upgrade path more difficult to calculate; you may want to rename more of the libraries based on practical feedback once you've uploaded. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
