Re: libpoppler3 missing in unstable
I see you're concerned with the way we handle SONAME transitions.
Please bring this up directly to the release team (Cc:-ed).
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 10 March 2009 at 10:35, Lo c Minier wrote:
> | Hi
> | On Mon, Mar 09, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > My pbuilder now fails as texlive-base-bin wants libpoppler3 which is no
> | > longer in unstable (but in testing) and texlive-base-bin has not yet been
> | > rebuilt against libpoppler4.
> | Sorry to hear that; this is expected for transitions though. BTW you
> | might have preferred contacting the email@example.com
> | alias though as I'm not the uploader of this change ("who-uploads
> | poppler").
> | Wait until texlive-bin is built on your arch, or build one yourself
> | locally -- but don't upload the resulting packages.
> | https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=texlive-bin
> | > Could you re-upload libpoppler3 while the transition with texlive is sorted
> | > out?
> | No, that doesn't make sense; we're trying to transition to the new
> | package name, we don't want to revert the change; also it would require
> | reverting to the old upstream version, so an epoch, or two source
> | packages which is extra load for maintainers and ftpmasters. It's the
> | usual way of doing SONAME transitions I'm afraid.
> Not to my knowledge, and 14+ years experience in Debian.
> Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
> libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
> documentation. Was there a reason?
> Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.