Re: libgpod update
Hi Frank,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:07:56AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I would like to update libgpod in unstable. This would include both
> a soname change and a -dev package name change.
Why is this change important to include in the etch release?
Why does the -dev package name need to change? E.g., scope of API changes,
number of reverse-deps broken by these changes ( --> amount of work required
to get these packages releasable again)?
> Luckily the list of packages affected is pretty small (but the packages
> on it are somewhat big ;)
> amarok
> rhythmbox
> gtkpod
> listen (?) -- honestly don't know wether this needs updating since
> it uses the library through the python bindings
> gtkpod is from the same upstream and a version that works with the new
> library is ready. For the other packages I will need to research that.
> All other packages can easily be build without libgpod, though. As upstream
> declares the API still "unstable" this might not be the worst possible
> solution...
If the API is so unstable that all the reverse-deps will need source changes
for the update, you may be right; OTOH, it's my impression that this library
provides functionality that's rather significant to a number of users, so it
would be a shame to see support for it dropped from the music players.
> But before I start to look deeper into these issues I wanted to request
> an opinion from the release team whether this transition is generally
> possible and if it depends on any other current issues.
Please try to reach a consensus with the maintainers of the reverse-deps (as
you say, the list is short :) on how this should be handled for etch, prior
to uploading to unstable.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: