On 14/03/16 20:19, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> wrote:
On 14.03.2016 20:04, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
I've noted all depending package maintainers back then. Yes, didn't
prevent the testing migration of zeromq3. But some maintainers did the
migration to libzmq5-dev (uwsgi, czmq and jzmq comes to my mind);
changing it back to libzmq3-dev would cause more problems with these
packages.
that's why libzmq3-dev now provides libzmq5-dev.
I see vice-versa. It should remain libzmq5-dev due to the soname and
provide libzmq3-dev for binNMUs.
The problem with that is the versioned build-deps. Provides won't help with
that.
Also, real packages are preferred over provides, so the old libzmq3-dev would be
picked over libzmq5-dev...
Renaming a -dev package because the soname changed is bad. The only reason to do
it in this case is so that things don't look "odd".
What I think should happen here is:
The package is renamed back to libzmq3-dev, so rdeps can be binNMUed.
A provides can be added for the packages that changed, since their build-deps
are not versioned. After libzmq5-dev is decrufted, they will be fine.
Then the transition can complete.
How does that sound?
Cheers,
Emilio
