On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:26:15 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@debian.org> wrote: > On 14/03/16 22:03, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 14/03/16 21:55, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > >> <po...@debian.org> wrote: > >>> 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". > >> The main reason the soname is in the -dev package name is that the > >> simple 'libzmq-dev' is part of the zeromq package. But yes, it could > >> have remain as libzmq3-dev even if it looks inconsistent with libzm5. > > > > >>> 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? > >> I see and agree. Attached the next upload just to be sure. Please ACK > >> it and I'll upload it. > >> > >> Sorry for the extra round, > > > > Looks good. No problem and thanks for reacting that fast! > > I scheduled the binNMUs last night and things are going well. The only issue > seems to be pyzmq, see #818265.
Hi, I am the maintainer of libczmq, a dependent of libzmq. I have bumped the build-dep to libzmq5-dev after being asked (#815784). The library and its dependents build fine, and it has migrated to testing. Given the change of the -dev package name here, should I roll back and b-d again on libzmq3-dev? I don't mind doing another upload if it's the right thing. Thank you! Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
