On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:04:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Recall that Apt figures out dependency chains for most people. The only > people you're going to offend with the ugliness are people who already > think like Debian developers. And in my experience, one can't cross the > street without offending a Debian developer, so don't worry about it. > ;-) If you say so. I just tried to be friendly :) > You might as well. You're going to end up carrying a dummy package > sooner or later. Indeed. > > The 1.3.1 release is really old. I would like to have it in a good condition > > for sarge, then focus on 5.0.0 and, later, ask to remove 1.3.1. > Well, if you don't want to unleash 5.0.0 into sarge, then that *is* a > good reason for waiting. I have no idea - see below. > > The 5.0.0 package will be consistent with DP 8.1. BTW, how should > > package with development files be named: t1lib5-dev or libt1-5-dev? > What's wrong with libt1-dev? Do you expect to have to support > development against multiple versions of t1lib? No. Let me make myself clear. There is t1lib 1.3.1 package in Debian. This is old and unsupported. My goal is to remove it from Debian. There is t1lib 5.0.0. I would like to have it as an only t1lib in distribution. As I wrote it, it has some changes in API. Just replacing old version with current one result with FTBFS in some packages (well, probably in all dependant packages), what is not intended behavior. So we need a way to both version available in archive. Policy requests, that packages should contain a soname in this case. That's why I did this fuss about changing packages name. If there is any error in my thinking, please point it out to me. OTOH, other scenario is possible: 1. I left package with 1.3.1 version with names: t1lib1, t1lib-dev, t1lib-doc, t1lib1-bin. Version 5.0.0 is uploaded with names: libt1-5, libt1-dev, libt1-doc, t1lib-bin. 2. Dependant packages are modified and recompiled to use v5.0.0 3. 1.3.1 is removed, we left with libt1-5, libt1-dev, libt1-doc and t1lib-bin, for users convenience empty t1lib-dev and t1lib-doc with dependencies only will be added. But it is not consist with Policy, section 8.1. If we agree, that this migration should be done before sarge release then I go on. If not - the first way will be realized. Most of all I would like to know RM's opinion (Anthony, are you there?). Cheers Artur -- jabber:arturcz@hell.pl
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature