Issues with releasing bzip2 1.0.1

[Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org>]

Hi have some issues with releasing bzip2 1.0.1.
Namely, the current bzip2 source package (0.95d-3) generates three
packages:
	libbz2
	libbz2-dev (depends on libbz2)
	bzip2 (depends on libbz2)

Quite a few packages depend on libbz2 0.95b.
And 0.95d-3 has been released only a couple of days ago.
For some reasons, libbz2-1.0.1 has to conflict with libbz2 << 0.95b-3.

Solution #1:

  I release the bzip2 1.0.1 source as bzip2, generating the packages:
	libbz2-1.0
	libbz2-dev
	bzip2

  Archive situation: the bzip2 source overwrites the 0.95d-3
  source. The libbz2-dev and bzip2 binaries overwrites the 0.95d-3
  binaries. We're left with both libbz2 and libbz2-1.0 binary packages
  (for old packages compatibility).

  Problem: Nobody can rebuild libbz2 from source since it's not there
  anymore. Especially some archs that haven't caught up with
  0.95d-3. And we end up with a lot of uninstallable packages since
	- all the packages depending on libbz2 depend on 0.95b-x.
	- the new libbz2-1.0 conflicts requires that libbz2 is at
	  least 0.95b-3.
	- 0.95b-3 is not available (at least on some archs).

Solution #2:

  I release the bzip 1.0.1 source as bzip2-1.0, generating the
  packages:
	libbz2-1.0
	libbz2-dev
	bzip2

  Archive situation: we end up with two bzip2 source packages. The
  libbz2-dev and bzip2 binaries overwrites the 0.95d-3 binaries. We're
  left with both libbz2 and libbz2-1.0 binary packages (for old
  packages compatibility).

  Problem: we have two source packages generating bzip2 and
  libbz2-dev.

Solution #3:

  Same as #2, except that I also release bzip2 0.95d-4 which only
  builds the libbz2 package. It would allow non-i386 archs to catch up.

Anybody has dealt with the same issue with packages generating both
libraries and binaries? Which is the way to go? I would tend for #3
myself.

Phil.