On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 02:52:48AM +0200, Gerhard Dirschl wrote: > Package: libsoqt3-20 > Version: 1.4.2~svn20090224-2 > > libsoqt3 should be linked against Qt 3 but actually it is linked > against Qt 4 (apart from the suffix, there is no difference between > libsoqt3 and libsoqt4).
Wow. This was broken perhaps as long ago as March 2009 and
no-one noticed until now. Must not be an important package :-)
Dear Debian-Release:
SoQt is a library that provides Qt widgets for a visualization library
(Coin). When I first packaged it, Qt was version 3. In early days of
Qt4, it seemed important to provide SoQt for both Qt3 and Qt4. So I
modified the soqt source package to produce both libsoqt3-20 (Qt3
version) and libsoqt4-20 (Qt4 version). This worked in the Lenny
version. In March 2009, I updated the soqt sources and apparently
broke this so that libsoqt3-20 also links against Qt4. :-)
Since I'm not quite sure of the freeze timelines, I'd like your
advice.
First, it's clear that libsoqt3-20 (and libsoqt3-dev) shouldn't be
released as-is. Is it possible to remove those two binary packages
from testing while keeping the others (e.g. libsoqt4-20)? If so,
I'd suggest that can be done immediately.
Regardless of the above, I can prepare a new upload. I can see a few
options:
1. Fix present source package to build libsoqt3-20 properly.
That may take me a couple of weeks to get to.
2. Use present source package, removing libsoqt3-20 and libsoqt3-dev.
This option takes a couple of days.
3. Package new upstream (1.5.0 released March 2010) that provides
improved support for Qt4. This will take me a couple of weeks.
Option #3 is my preference. If I have to invest the time to figure
out what went wrong with linking to Qt3 and fix it, I'd prefer to also
update the source at the same time. Given that SoQt is a minor
library, I'd consider it low risk for the archive.
If the release team feels otherwise, I can work with the present
sources. Please advise whether an upload in 2 weeks (option #1) will
make it into the next release or whether I should instead choose
option #2.
Thanks,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
