Am Donnerstag, 23. März 2006 06:36 schrieb Steve Langasek: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:55:39PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > Sadly, they changed the soname again. So instead of directly uploading > > the new upstream version, I would like to wait for the following bugs to > > be resolved, > > first: > > affix: #358279 > > kdebluetooth: #358275 > > multisync: #358283 > > obexftp: needs upload of 0.19 (have to ask my sponsor :) > > First of all, why are there already two libopenobex packages in unstable > (libopenobex -> libopenobex1, and libopenobex1.0 -> libopenobex1.0-0)? > > Secondly, why do the above bugs need to be fixed before uploading the new > version of libopenobex? AIUI, they already build-depend only on > libopenobex-1.0-0-dev, which is the older version of the library.
Right. > Third, if you're changing the name of the -dev package anyway, why are you > changing it to libopenobex1-dev instead of libopenobex-dev? Is the API > expected to change with every soname change? No but I cannot say that it will never change in an incompatible way (be it renaming of structs, functions, the whole glue or how the library can be detected). I followed libpkg-guide here: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id265760 Additionally, libopenobex-1.0-0-dev already has a Provides: libopenobex-dev which makes this impossible (could stay installed in this case). > > When those are in testing, I will request removal of the old binary lib > > packages (libopenobex-1.0-0*) from testing and sid. > > Well, that answers my first question. It also means that those bugs are > filed at the wrong severity: these packages currently do *not* FTBFS, > because you haven't requested removal of the old library yet. BTW: do they get removed automatically after some time or do I have to request that? What about the source packages? > > The build dependencies of those packages should then be at > > libopenobex-dev (>= 1.1) > > That won't work. libopenobex-dev is a virtual package; you can't have a > versioned (build-)dep on a virtual package. Ui, didn't know that. Then it must follow every soname manually... > But I don't see any good reason why libopenobex-dev shouldn't be the *real* > package name. > > So, please: > > - make the name of the -dev package libopenobex-dev instead of > libopenobex1-dev, because sonames shouldn't be encoded in -dev package > names libpkg-guide says the opposite. > - don't wait for the other packages to be updated before uploading the new > soname, if one is needed > - don't wait for the other packages to be updated before filing a removal > request for the old library version. Where do I request such a removal? HS
