On 09.04.25 10:06, Aron Xu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> wrote:
as a second step, I'm uploading the current libxml2 source package
renamed to libxml2.9 to experimental (delayed 5), renaming the -dev and
-tools packages (example packaging in the same PPA).
These packages can be used as a fall-back until all packages are updated
to use libxml2 2.14.x.
I find myself a bit reluctant to update libxml2 to 2.14.x at this
moment even in experimental since we are not going to release trixie
with that version. There's still plenty of time before actually
kicking off some sort of transition. How do you think about using
libxml2.14 for the newer version at the moment to facilitate test
builds?
Does this make a difference, if we change the source name to libxml2.14,
and keep the binary names?
Please also note, there already is a libxml2 (2.13.x) in experimental,
not sure what you gain by not updating. Using 2.14.x instead of 2.13.x
is the finally changed soname.
However, this does not mean I'm strongly against the proposed approach
but rather discussing for which is the better way.
I'm not sure, if I understand ... test rebuilds with changed binary
names would be useless ...
I already had done a first test rebuild with 2.12.x in
https://launchpad.net/~doko/+archive/ubuntu/libxml2/+packages
Matthias
