Re: Possible liblapack transition
* Rafael Laboissiere <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2009-03-01 13:58]:
> Version 3.2 of the lapack library has been released  and is now packaged
> in experimental (version 3.2.0-1). As regards the version currently in
> unstable (3.1.1), the API has changed  in the following way:
> I would like to know the opinion of the Release Team on how to proceed.
> Since the upstream authors do not choose the SONAME and the current one
> (liblapack3gf) is a Debian invention, we are now left with two options:
> option #1) Release liblapack3gf_3.2.0 to unstable without changing the
> SONAME, hoping that my analysis above is correct and there will
> be no breakages.
> option #2) Change the SONAME, release liblapack3.2_3.2.0 (or whichever
> name) to unstable and schedule binNMUs for all the rdepend
I asked the question above over a week ago and got no reaction from the
Release Team since then. I suppose that you guys are either too busy with
other transitions or think that this API change is not so dramatic. I
think that we could go with option #1 above and everything will be fine.
If no objections are raised in a reasonable amount of time from now, I will
release liblapack3gf_3.2.0 to unstable without bumping the SONAME.