Re: intent to do a poppler transition
Frank Küster píše v Út 03. 10. 2006 v 16:29 +0200:
> Ondřej Surý <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:39 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> >> Dear Ondrej!
> >> Can you now tell us what the status is? It is a bit unclear for me? I
> >> can create new packages for texlive-bin with the changed patch, or leave
> >> it.
> >> Are the packages you want to upload to unstable already in experimental,
> >> or available in any other place? If yes I could at least try in my
> >> cowbuilder whether building works.
> > 0.5.4-2 is in experimental (i386) and can be used as base for
> > transition.
> Well, we can use them as a base for testing. However, it seems as if
> starting the transition would be a bit premature. I have seen a couple
> of questions that are not yet answered:
> - Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or
> is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Or
> even if it's generally consensual, should the name still be kept
> unchanged because plain libpoppler doesn't guarantee any API anyway?
> - In any case, shouldn't we carefully check all affected packages,
> whether they FTBFS and whether they still work? This would IMO
> require a phase where all of them are in experimental, except poppler
> itself in case it gets a new dev package name.
Looks like ideal move would be to create libpoppler0.5-dev; -glib and
-qt bindings didn't change API, so they could keep their name.
And I will introduce debian specific SONAME for libpoppler, so we are
not hit by random ABI changes.
I would like to look at possibility of creating libpoppler-plain library
with minimal subset of functionality needed by other packages and stable
In future we should drop libpoppler-dev at all and have just
-plain,-glib,-qt bindings -dev packages available.
Ondřej Surý <firstname.lastname@example.org>