On Wednesday 18 November 2009 23:13:44 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Patrick, > > I am sorry about the breakage in mumble. I had coordinated the NMU I made > for protobuf 2.2 with Iustin who had suggested that I contact > debian-release. > > Nobody at the Debian release lists followed up on my posts. Nobody > followed up when I pointed out that the upstream soname of protobuf 2.2 is > still 4.0.0. I tried to be minimally invasive with my NMU and did > therefore not raise the soname.
This is just wrong and broken library maintenance, no matter what excuses you try to use. The minimal things to do when packaging a new upstream version of a library is to check wether it breaks the ABI or not, and if yes, then act appropriately. So how did you check the ABI? > I am not sure what the best way forward is. Given that mumble is the only > user of protobuf, could you just rebuild based on the protobuf? That is > probably quicker than a new upload, NEW queue, required rebuild, ... and > avoids all hazzles regarding soname conflicts if we move to 5 now and > Google later claims 5. protobuf is a library also used for many homemade applications that aren't in debian (yet?) and you also break these this way. You can also try to just rename the package as a minimum, but unfriendly to the rest of debian (And users of the library not in debian). Using "avoiding NEW" to justify this is just plain wrong. To quote the /topic of the #debian-release channel: | Breaks for SONAME changes instead of package renames? Think again! </rant> /Sune -- Man, how may I upload from the sendmail over the BIOS secret code? You need to rename a gadget for inserting the ethernet connection on the mail of a processor on a wordprocessor. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
