Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 04/08/14 19:53, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:59:50AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: >> calendar.) ICU transitions have historically been quite painless. The >> dev package is just called libicu-dev, and the API is very stable. >> Failure to keep ICU reasonably current results in important packages > > I am not sure it's THAT smooth this time, see e.g. > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-4-2&id=32a9c19bf79b99ae3b6cdae7ccc07499094a5603 > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-4-2&id=1ce42d1001139a9168e9451dbd48a6daef95c691 > > Especially the latter one. (LO already has them, but I already > had them backported in earlier package versions.) > >> like libreoffice pulling in their own ICU, which is a challenge from a >> security standpoint. I have already put ICU 53 in experimental, so most >> likely, doing this transition is just giving me the okay to upload to >> experimental and then scheduling binary NMUs of downstream packages. > > I think they should at least be test-built before. But that won't help in > cases > like the second one above.
A summary of the API/ABI changes would be nice, as well as a list of packages that build fine against the new icu and a list of packages that fail (accompanied by bug reports and possibly patches if you really want this to happen for jessie). Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
