On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:12:39 +0000 Bradley Smith <bradsm...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:26:52 +0000 > Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org> wrote: > > > I'm sure you're aware of the release freeze - do you have a > > particular need for 3.0.0 in experimental? > > Sure, I'm just curious as to whether a version will hit experimental > or whether it'll just be after lenny, since I'd quite like to use > some of the features in the newer version. OK, I've had a look at 3.0.0 and the news is truly appalling - this has to be the worst upstream release I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I don't think 3.0.0 is going to hit Debian any time soon - either in experimental or unstable. The package has changed radically in this release, large parts of the build system have become brain-dead and non-configurable. Entire sections of the package have disappeared (notably sqlite support) and the build system is simply not sane any more. The little bit of the package I've been able to build so far results in a broken libsoci_core.so anyway - no SONAME. I'm going to have to spend large amounts of time persuading upstream that removing 75% of the upstream tarball - mostly all the build environment scripts (like configure.in) is not a sane way to release a package. Currently, I'm beginning to regret packaging soci 2.2.0 for Debian as 3.0.0 is severely crippled by design. (I'm not kidding, the old .orig.tar.gz is 600Kb and the new one less than 200Kb.) I'm actually debating whether to seek removal of 2.2.0 rather than introduce the mess that is 3.0.0 - at least until 3.0.1 becomes a possibility. I'll upload 2.2.0-5 to fix the gcc-4.4 but that can easily wait until after Lenny - unless I decide to remove soci before that time. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgpNJApGz7Zv9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
