ABI breakage is not a problem. Upstream should simply bump the so name of the library, and you're set. If upstream does not do so, you can do it yourself (but it would be better to do it for all distros and OSes).
It's even a good news to have an active upstream that cleans up his/her house and push the software forward. At least your packaging efforts are worth it. Don't worry. Mt On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:10:32AM +0000, Peter Spiess-Knafl wrote: > I am currently in discussion with the upstream author: > > https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp/issues/147 > > ABI compatibility looks terrible. > > On 01/27/2015 12:57 PM, Martin Quinson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:41:49AM +0000, Peter Spiess-Knafl > > wrote: > >> The actual maintainer seems unresponsive. I contacted him 2 > >> months ago and pinged again now, no luck so far. > >> > >> Can I adopt it, if there is no RFA? What if the current > >> maintainer does not answer at all? > >> > >> Anyway I will start packaging current 0.7.x. And maybe the latest > >> 1.3 for experimental. > >> > >> Would you be able to review/sponsor it, if it is done? > > > > I'm affraid I'm really overloaded right now. But if you come up > > with a repackaging of libjsoncpp, we'll find a solution. There is > > quite a few reverse dependencies (afaik), so we will find someone > > to review and sponsor your packaging. I will have a very bad time > > helping you packaging the stuff, though. > > > > If the maintainer is MIA, then we can upload the new versions as > > NMU or even move to a team maintenance, don't stress. 2 months is > > already something, but I'd prefer to not hijack the package before > > another 2 months period, to give enough time to the maintainer to > > react. > > > > I'm not really aware of what are the good practices in this domain > > for debian. You should ask to some QA mailing list, maybe. > > > > Bye, Mt. > > > -- Les chats, c'est vraiment des branleurs. -- Alain Chabat
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
