Re: intent to do a poppler transition
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> > - 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?
>> Step 1:
>> 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.
> Six packages build-depend on libpoppler-dev, but I understand that only one
> of them is affected by the API change; so it seems my concern about
> cost/benefit of changing the package name still applies here.
Two actually, tetex and texlive, since both build the same binary,
pdftex. How do you know the others don't have a problem? Has anybody
tried to build the others?
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)