Re: [DebianGIS] Re: gdal
Jon,
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 09:18 -0800, Jon Saints wrote:
> Seems to me Its best for now to so ahead and put Steve's package with
> my one change on alioth CVS into unstable. This will break other
> packages qgis and mapserver. But as of my tests last night neither
> package was installable any way so our interference will be minimal.
> At least in the long run we will have gdal 1.3.1 in unstable that we
> can use to build new mapserver and qgis packages.
We'll need to rebuild everything that depends on gdal I think. But I
still think it's worth uploading 1.3.1. I'm still not sure what the name
of the library package should be. Based on more reading of the library
packaging guide I don't think libgdal2 is good because the soname is
still libgdal.so.1 and the name is supposed to match the soname. How
about libgdal1.3.1-1? So the upload would be libgdal1.3.1-1-1. What
could be more clear?
Steve
>
> Once we have this version in unstable I will begin looking into
> making a separate C++ library package that wont break qgis and
> mapserver with updates.
>
> Has anyone researched how other distrobutions are dealing with this
> issue?
>
> It might be interesting to know.
> Jon
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
> To: Steve Halasz <debian@adkgis.org>
> Cc: DebianGIS <pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Sent: Mon 19 Dec 2005 09:41:49 AM MST
> Subject: Re: [DebianGIS] Re: gdal
>
> On 12/19/05, Steve Halasz <debian@adkgis.org> wrote:
> > Frank,
> >
> > What is considered version-to-version? Is it possible to have the
> > expectation that the ABI will remain unchanged for 1.2.0 - 1.2.x and
> > then change for 1.3.0, etc.? Perhaps if ABI changes are saved for
> > "major" new release versions we can deal with rebuilding everything
> > periodically.
>
> Steve,
>
> Even 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 are likey to be ABI incompatible at the
> C++ level.
>
> The problem with "saving up changes" is that I would then
> have to be super careful about what sorts of changes are
> done when. But the truth is that the development of GDAL
> is funded by folks with immediate needs and I am not
> interested in stalling them for many months or even years
> just to retain some degree of ABI compatibility.
>
> There are some things I could do to track it, but I have
> made the deliberate decision not to pursue C++ ABI
> compatability in order to simplify and streamline maintenance
> of GDAL. This is not open for argument.
>
> Frankly, in some ways I regret ever having exposed a
> C++ API.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-grass-general mailing list
> Pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-grass-general mailing list
> Pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general
Reply to: