Your message dated Sun, 04 Oct 2020 17:59:33 +0200
with message-id <dde11a825c5196f65fa4d300ca0d17d53d839ba3.camel@jff.email>
and subject line Re: Bug#908681: libsane1: pointless package rename
has caused the Debian Bug report #908681,
regarding libsane1: pointless package rename
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
908681: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=908681
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libsane1
Severity: serious
Hi,
libsane was renamed to libsane1 for apparently no good reason. Renames
for library packages should be tied to ABI breakage (and associated
SONAME changes).
Either there was ABI breakage and the SONAME should be bumped (and
Provides: libsane would be wrong), or there wasn't and the package name
change ought to be reverted.
I don't know which it is, and when I asked I didn't get a clear answer,
so I'll ask again here.
Cheers,
Julien
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
Am Sonntag, den 04.10.2020, 16:44 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
> Control: reopen -1
> Control: found -1 1.0.31-2
> Control: fixed -1 1.0.27-3.1
>
> On 2018-09-12 16:14:51 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Package: libsane1
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > libsane was renamed to libsane1 for apparently no good reason. Renames
> > for library packages should be tied to ABI breakage (and associated
> > SONAME changes).
> >
> > Either there was ABI breakage and the SONAME should be bumped (and
> > Provides: libsane would be wrong), or there wasn't and the package name
> > change ought to be reverted.
> >
> > I don't know which it is, and when I asked I didn't get a clear answer,
> > so I'll ask again here.
>
> We are back to square 1. When asked again in #960046 the question was
> simply ignored and it got uploaded anyway.
>
We are not back.
Between 1.0.30 and 1.0.31 are the following 7 symbols are not longer available:
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_append_commands_node@Base 1.0.29
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_known_commands_input_failed@Base 1.0.29
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_last_known_seq@Base 1.0.29
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_record_backend@Base 1.0.29
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_xml_doc@Base 1.0.29
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_xml_next_tx_node@Base 1.0.29
#MISSING: 1.0.31# testing_xml_path@Base 1.0.29
This ABI changes are not backward-compatible. And so the change are required.
Therefore I close this bug.
> Cheers
CU
Jörg
--
New:
GPG Fingerprint: 63E0 075F C8D4 3ABB 35AB 30EE 09F8 9F3C 8CA1 D25D
GPG key (long) : 09F89F3C8CA1D25D
GPG Key : 8CA1D25D
CAcert Key S/N : 0E:D4:56
Old pgp Key: BE581B6E (revoked since 2014-12-31).
Jörg Frings-Fürst
D-54470 Lieser
git: https://jff.email/cgit/
Threema: SYR8SJXB
Wire: @joergfringsfuerst
Skype: joergpenguin
Ring: jff
Telegram: @joergfringsfuerst
My wish list:
- Please send me a picture from the nature at your home.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---
