[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libvigraimpex: unplanned mini-transition?



* Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, 2010-07-22, 11:38:
It was discovered that VIGRA 1.7.0 (known as libvigraimpex in Debian), broke ABI without bumping SONAME. Unforuntaly, the flawed version has already migrated to testing. As a consequence, lprof, the only rev-dependency of VIGRA, is currently unusable both in unstable and esting (bug #589206).
[...]
1. Just binNMU lprof and forget. This will break partial upgrades, however.

2. Bump SONAME, as upstream did when he was notified about the issue: http://www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~meine/hg/vigra/rev/9432cb9531ae
(Please note that there's no released version with this SONAME yet.)

Is there an ETA for a release using libvigraimpex3? If it's likely to be soon then it may be worth waiting and pursuing this route; if it will be a while or there is no ETA then this doesn't seem like the best idea as we risk ending up with a libvigraimpex3 ABI which doesn't match the upstream library of that name.

The next release is planned for September. I guess we cannot wait that long.

3. Leave SONAME as is, but rename binary package from libvigraimpex2ldbl back to libvigraimpex2. (Binary package libvigraimpex2 did exist only before lenny release.)

This seems the next most preferable option after 2), imho.

I have a new package (with the same SONAME, renamed binary package) ready. Is it OK to upload it to unstable?

Note that one of the binary packages has dependency on "python-numpy (>= 1.4)", which means that it will become entangled with another unplanned transition.

--
Jakub Wilk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: