Re: Please consider a binNMU on reprepro due to libarchive transition.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:36:45PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Regarding #418637.
> I've prepared a new release of deb-gview which Build-Depends on
> libarchive-dev. libarchive1 has been replaced by libarchive2 in
> unstable but I cannot find any ABI/API change as yet - I use deb-gview
> and reprepro regularly (I suspect others would use the two together as
> well) and when I recompiled deb-gview and reprepro against libarchive2,
> both compiled and functioned perfectly.
> I'm ready to make an upload of deb-gview and I'm wondering if a binNMU
> of reprepro is worthwhile to allow deb-gview, libarchive2 and reprepro
> to be installable together.
> It does seem to be working around the problem in libarchive, rather
> than fixing it, so I'm really asking whether a binNMU of reprepro is the
> best solution to #418637.
If there are no changes in ABI between libarchive1 and libarchive2, the best
here is to revert the package rename, if necessary keeping a libarchive.so.1
-> libarchive.so.2 compat symlink in the package for compatibility both with
upstream and with previous Debian versions.
If there is some reason that this solution would be inadequate I will be
happy to schedule binNMUs, but from here it looks like that would be a wrong
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.