Re: permission for ICU transition
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:57:56PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> > If there are no incompatible API changes, wouldn't it be more
>> > straightforward to continue building libicu34-dev from the icu
>> > source and schedule binNMUs for the reverse-deps instead of renaming
>> > it to libicu36-dev and requiring editing of build-deps?
>> Well, there are lots of new APIs. Anyway, I feel like it would be
>> better to have the name be neutral (like libicu-dev) if we are going
>> to drop the soname from the -dev package rather than having it be
>> called libicu34-dev which seems somehow misleading. There are also
>> some deprecated interfaces from 3.4, so it is still my inclination to
>> go ahead and rename the -dev package and have the new -dev package
>> conflict with the old one.
> Ok. Since the 3.4 interfaces are still present, even if deprecated, perhaps
> a Provides: libicu34-dev might still be appropriate?
Yes, I agree. I'll put it in. Thanks.