Hi James, The request to make both libs coexist is much older. I don't have the links here, but the 1.8 branch is quite old. I made it clear at the time that 1.8 was untested, so I did not release it. But I do remember it was present in one of the Debian releases, and I do remember making it clear that there was no official 1.8 release at the time.
Anyway, I think this naming scheme with versions is broken, so it should be fixed ASAP. I will quickly accept any patch fixing it. Regards, Marcelo. On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM, James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 31/07/17 14:50, Marcelo Roberto Jimenez wrote: > > I personally don't like that change of names. I agree that it is not the > > proper way to do it. It was done as a temporary hack to allow both libs > > to be installed. Since libupnp 1.8 is finally advancing, this should no > > longer be the case. > > > > So, I think libupnp should come back to the proper naming scheeme, but > > IIRC, some Debian apps will be affected, since installing both libs has > > been a Debian request. > > This appears to where it was decided? I'm not sure I can remember > asking you to change the package names. > https://github.com/mrjimenez/pupnp/issues/15 > > The argument in that thread is about co-installing libraries. This isn't > a problem for Debian (at runtime at least) because the libraries and > headers are in separate packages. It may be an issue for other > distributions though. > > There is currently nothing in Debian depending on libupnp 1.8 so large > changes such as this are not a problem at the moment. > > Thanks, > James > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf <j...@videolan.org > > <mailto:j...@videolan.org>> wrote: > > > > Hello Sebastian, Bugreporters, > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, at 14:58, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:34:42PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher > wrote: > > > > > > currently there are two versions of libupnp in the archive > (libupnp6 and > > > > > > libupnp-1.8-10). To be able to remove libupnp6 (i.e. the > older of the > > > > > > two) it is necessary to port vlc (and all other rdepends) to > > > > > > libupnp-1.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch below implements this for vlc. With this applied I > can still > > > > > > playback videos with vlc. > > > > > > > > > > As long as the adoption to upnp 1.8 requires to add -1.8 > everywhere (are we > > > > > supposed to change it to -1.9 next month with the next > upstream release?), this > > > > > was explicitly NAKed upstream. > > > > > > > > Which upstream? vlc I suppose? Do you have a link to the > discussion > > > > handy? > > > > > > Yes, vlc upstream. This was over IRC and I don't have logs. But > I'm sure > > > J-B > > > will repeat it if necessary (CCed) > > > > Sure. > > > > Since when releasing a new version of a library requires changing all > > the includes and all the pkg-config detection? > > > > SO names are done to notate API/ABI changes within a library and > > PKG-CONFIG files are done to show where to find the includes folder > and > > how to link. > > > > If you do a moderate breaking change, you change the API, the ABI, > and > > bump the library version name majorly. And people linking against you > > will need to adapt, when they bump the requirements. This was done > for > > almost every minor C/C++ library, since forever. > > > > So, sorry, but this way of renaming the headers folder name and > changing > > the .pc files is completely backward; and sorry, totally not > justified, > > because it's justified for complete rewrites, not for a moderate > change. > > > > If you want to do that anyway, at least provide the same .pc file > name > > which gives the new includes. > > > > Best, > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President > > +33 672 704 734 <tel:%2B33%20672%20704%20734> > > > > > > >
