Re: Help with upgrading libflickrnet
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:17 +0200, Mirco Bauer wrote:
> > - should I rename source package and let the older version also
> > co-exist?
If nothing is gained by doing so, then I would recommend against it -
it's just more work to maintain
> > - how do I check for ABI/API compatibility with the older version?
Try "mono-api-check -2 /path/to/old.dll /path/to/new.dll". It'll give
you a simple answer to the ABI question (are there any removed
methods/properties/etc? No means compatible). If it's compatible, then
there's even less need to ship an old version - include a Policy file
(http://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/cli-policy/ch-packaging.html#s-gac-policy-files) so any app compiled against 2.1.5 still works.
> > - should the binary package be named *2.2.0-cli or just *2.2-cli?
This is covered in policy -
http://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/cli-policy/ch-packaging.html#s-gac-naming-versioning - and basically comes down to "2.2-cil"
> > I actually have prepared a preliminary package, which is available on
> > my homepage [4].
> > Could you please have a look at the package, and let
> > me know your comments?
debian/changelog:
* Renaming the source package seems pretty pointless to me - there are
very few rdeps, so even if it's not ABI compatible, little is served by
it
* Redo the numbering system, it sucks. I discussed this with meebey a
few days ago, and we felt that a "normal" version number, with an epoch,
was easiest for users and developers to understand - meaning
"1:2.2.0-1". 48055~2.2.0-1 doesn't really mean anything to anyone, as
it's unclear to casual observers that 48055 is a SVN revision - and the
"~" usually means "before" so it doesn't make much sense
debian/control:
* See above r.e. binary package name/number
debian/copyright:
* If you really want to make a new source package, be sure to refresh
this - e.g. the download link is to the previous version
debian/installcligac:
* See above r.e. binary package name/number
debian/watch:
* I've sent a query to someone at CodePlex to try and make this
manageable - nothing yet though
Reply to: