On 3/19/19 2:25 AM, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I'm talking about the src:double-conversion package (popcon >= 70k),
> and a choice for the post-Buster stage.
>
> The upstream doesn't follow semantic versioning convention at all.
> Recently they have changed the SOVERSION to 3:
> https://git
>
> On 19 Mar 2019, at 11:15, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Mo Zhou:
>
>> Should I bump the SOVERSION and trigger a transition after the Buster
>> release? (I think it's pointless, as it triggers pointless rebuild for
>> many packages including Qt) Or ignore the upstream SOVERSION bump and
>> tra
Srinivas Rao writes:
> Hi Debian devel team,
>
> I am planning to work on small IoT kind of project using Debian OS. I would
> like to customize Debian OS. could you please tell me, where can I get or
> download Debian source code and how can I create build system.
>
> please let me know if an
* Sam Hartman:
> There's fairly significant advantages to keeping ABI consistent with
> upstream when possible.
> So, unless the Debian ABI has diverged from upstream already, I'd
> recommend that you track the soname change and accept the rebuilds
> post-buster.
It's possible to support both son
* Mo Zhou:
> Should I bump the SOVERSION and trigger a transition after the Buster
> release? (I think it's pointless, as it triggers pointless rebuild for
> many packages including Qt) Or ignore the upstream SOVERSION bump and
> track the changes by myself?
I've been able to convince libidn2 to
There's fairly significant advantages to keeping ABI consistent with
upstream when possible.
So, unless the Debian ABI has diverged from upstream already, I'd
recommend that you track the soname change and accept the rebuilds
post-buster.
If you've already had to break ABI with upstream, then be as
6 matches
Mail list logo
