Re: Transition: krb5 to drop Kerberos IV (libkrb53 restructuring)
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> "Julien" == Julien BLACHE <jblache@debian.org> writes:
Julien> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote: Hi,
>>> That is, if I made the dependency in libkrb5-3.symbols look
>>> like libkrb5-3|libkrb53 (and similar changes for other symbols
>>> files), then both the packages in unstable and testing would
>>> satisfy the dependencies. It seems like this would
>>> significantly reduce the impact of the transition. Am I
>>> missing something or would this change be a good idea?
Sam> 3 Julien> Have you considered uploading a version of krb5
Sam> with: -
Julien> libkrb5-3 - libkrb4-? - libkrb53 a metapackage depending
Julien> on both of the above - libkrb5-dev depending on libkrb5-3
Julien> alone and containing only the files needed to link with
Julien> libkrb5-3
Sam> That's undesirable because building without krb4 has some
Sam> fairly significant impacts on non-library parts of the krb5
Sam> packages. So I could not actually build with krb4 support
Sam> disabled. I guess I could do two build passes one with krb4
Sam> support and one without (picking up only the krb4 library
Sam> from the krb4 build pass).
Sam> unless I'm missing something).
Sam> Assuming that alternatives in the symbols file works, it
Sam> seems like the only difference between your proposal and my
Sam> original proposal is that it handles uninstalling libkrb53
Sam> somewhat better if one of the packages that replaces files in
Sam> libkrb53 is installed. It also allows the new krb5 to migrate
Sam> to testing ahead of waiting for everything to be rebuilt. If
Sam> the alternatives approach works it means that both approaches
Sam> allow other packages to migrate to testing.
Ah, I was missing something. It allows us to decouple when we
generate a bunch of binary NMUs from when we turn off krb4. When I
upload the new package, nothing breaks in unstable, so there is no
particular need for the release team to do anything under any time
pressure.
Reply to: