Re: Small library transition: libcupsys2 -> libcups2
* Martin Pitt [Sun, 25 May 2008 16:45:20 +0200]:
> Hi Adeodato,
> Adeodato Simó [2008-05-24 17:06 +0200]:
> > You provide a transitional package for the libcupsys2 library (yay),
> > which means that transitioning this to testing will be completely
> > painless (because there'll be both libcupsys2 and libcups2 in testing,
> > and rebuilt packages will migrate as they become ready).
> I actually don't like this, but since we do not have versioned
> Provides:, I'd immediately break existing reverse versioned
> dependencies without one.
Right; since this is not a real SONAME bump, I muchly prefer for it to
be done this way, thanks.
> > * Regarding libcupsys2-dev, 7 packages have a *versioned*
> > build-dependency on it, which means 7 RC bugs (since libcupsys2-dev
> > has no transitional package, only a Provides). If you'd agree to
> > file them, and NMU after a while the unfixed ones, that'd be great.
> > If not, maybe a transitional package would be better?
> Right, I'll provide a transitional package.
> > * Since I guess your intention is for all the libcupsys2-dev
> > build-dependencies to eventually disappear, will you be doing a mass
> > bug filing at a low severity? If so, I think we can skip doing
> > binNMUs at this stage, since many packages will need an upload for
> > this anyway. Later on, when all uploads have happened, we can binNMU
> > the remaining stuff.
> I intended to file bugs for doing that transition, since it's less
> than 10.
Hm. I count 6 packages Depending: libcupsys2-dev, but *28* Build-Depending
In any case, it doesn't matter much to us, since these won't be RC bugs.
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there
is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.
-- J.K. Galbraith