+ Steve Langasek (Sun, 17 May 2009 13:10:01 -0700):
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 04:11:20PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > + Adeodato Simó (Sun, 17 May 2009 11:21:06 +0200):
> > > The problem is a bug in the packaging of pulseaudio itself, which
> > > doesn't specify in its Depends field that it needs the latest version of
> > > libpulse0 to run, despite linking to libpulsecommon-0.9.15.so. According
> > > to the Debian Policy, this is a serious bug.
> > (Assuming, of course, that libpulsecommon-0.9.15.so is some kind of
> > private library that only packages from the same source depend on/link
> > against, and that for this reason is okay to ship in libpulse0 and bump
> > its SONAME without a package rename.)
> It's a new library; I guess (hope) that it's a new API and therefore there
> are no backwards-incompatibilities that would require a package name change.
Oh, I see. Good. Still, perhaps it should be assesed how many apps are
going to use this library (is it a private one?), and if it's going to
see its SONAME bumped more often than libpulse.so.0 (which one would say
is going to be the case by looking at its name), as to avoid having to
unnecessarily rename libpulse0. Or, if only a couple packages from the
same source package depend on this library, maybe we could do away with
Breaks.
Thoughts?
--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
