Hello Rolf! There are obviously some misconceptions on the Ubuntu side, especially among its users what exactly has happened here and why it happened.
First of all, it's not Debian's responsibility if Ubuntu as their downstream pulls a package from the *experimental* distribution without making any review of the actual changes to the code. Packages in the experimental distribution are not intended for normal users, they are solely intended for Debian Developers and other developers for testing purposes. The responsibility for this faux-pax lies on the Ubuntu side, not on Debian's side. So, I would like to ask you to reconsider your criticism regarding this issue. On 11/01/2017 08:01 PM, Rolf Bensch wrote: > Why have you renamed libsane to libsane1? Debian provides more effective > mechanisms for versioning a package than renaming it. This isn't about package version numbers, this is about ABI versions and ABI versions of libraries *ARE* encoded in the package name as per Debian Policy. Quote: "The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared library changes. This allows several versions of the shared library to be installed at the same time, allowing installation of the new version of the shared library without immediately breaking binaries that depend on the old version. Normally, the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should be placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion is the version number in the SONAME of the shared library. Alternatively, if it would be confusing to directly append soversion to libraryname (if, for example, libraryname itself ends in a number), you should use libraryname-soversion instead. [2]" from: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#run-time-shared-libraries The SO version was missing from the libsane package which clearly is a violation of said section in the Debian Policy which is why Joerg fixed the issue. Furthermore, he went through the proper process of starting a library transition, something that is done several times through the Debian development process with various libraries like libpng, libssl, libperl and so on every time we're working on a new release. Library package names are *not* and have never been a constant. > FYI, this also beaks my Ubuntu PPA > (https://launchpad.net/~rolfbensch/+archive/ubuntu/sane-git), which I'm > providing as an Ubuntu using SANE maintainer. This is completely irrelevant to Debian. It is your responsibility to rebuild your packages if a library transition occurs as there is no guarantee that an ABI version of a library remains constant in the next Debian release. As I said, library transitions happen all the time. Debian's responsibility lies within the limits of the Debian archive. We can not and we also don't want to be responsible for any *binary* packages outside the Debian archive. If your packaging has been done according to the package guidelines of the Debian Policy, then all you have to do to fix the issue is trigger a binary NMU, i.e. a rebuild of your source packages against the new ABI version and consequently library package name, > Hope this helps. I'm afraid it doesn't as you are shifting blame onto Debian maintainers and trying to explain them how to do their job when they were actually adhering to the Debian Policy and working towards improving the conformity of the SANE package to said policy. Thanks, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
