Re: intent to do a poppler transition
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > 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?
Yes, this is a very controversial recommendation in the library packaging
guide. The recommendation there is to change the -dev package name for
*any* API changes, no matter how small a subset of reverse-dependencies may
be affected. If there are 9 packages build-depending on poppler, 8 of them
can be binNMUed and one of them requires source changes to work with the new
version, it's not an effective use of developer resources to impose a -dev
package name change that will force maintainers of all 9 packages to make
> - 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.
Yes, given the current release schedule, this new libpoppler transition will
only be considered for etch if someone does rebuild and test all the
reverse-dependencies, providing any necessary patches and documenting these
to the release team.
This doesn't require uploading all of the packages to experimental; anyone
wishing to work on this transition can do so in the environment of their
choice and report the results to debian-release and the BTS.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.