Hi, On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:53:55PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote: > > There is a theoretical and a practical aspect to this issue. From a > > theoretical point of view, the dependency relations should not be stricter > > than necessary, to allow partial upgrades and to avoid complicating > > migration to testing of library transitions. > > Then again, I believe the project at large is moving towards > stricter-than-necessary dependencies (see the implied dh_makeshlibs -V > in dh compat 12, lintian nagging about the Build-Depends-Package in > .symbols files, etc).
We'll need to find a middle ground here. The impact will depends on the way the issue is fixed. I guess that's something for bookworm. The main concerns (from my POV) are: - making sure we don't inadvertently create some dependency loop that makes upgrades more difficult (or impossible) - avoiding turning the library transition into a non-smooth one, where all packages have to migrate at the same time > I also don't believe a stricter dependency between libpoppler102 and > libpoppler-glib8 would have any of the issue you mention. I suspect tightening the dependencies between libpoppler-glibX and libpopplerX will cause a lot less issues than artificially bumping the version for all symbols. > > It would create the desired dependency, but I'm not sure if this is better > > than just manually adding it to the 2 remaining packages we are aware of > > (especially at this stage of the freeze). > > > For now, though (and especially for bullseye), I think we should accept > > that we aren't going to solve this issue in general. The best we can do, is > > to try to fix obvious cases where we are aware of the issue. In other cases, > > we'll probably need to advise our users to do a full upgrade instead of a > > partial one. > > So, if that's what you think, should I upload an inkscape with a manual > dependency on libpoppler-glib8 >= 20.09.0? Yes, that would be useful. > (mhh, is there a way to do this without writing it in d/control?). There probably is, but writing it in d/control will be the easiest by far. Thanks, Ivo
