Re: Bug#116727: How to go about transition in libexpat1
Thanks for helping in solving this indeed messy situation.
Junichi Uekawa (email@example.com) wrote:
> I was thinking about this transition (messy one), and this is my proposed "solution" to the problem,
> if the package name / soname needs to stay this way.
I think it's best to leave everything as it is and clean up the mess.
> Now some packages have done the transition (i.e. rebuilt against the newer libs), and some
> others have not.
> This is an inconsistency that "testing" cannot detect.
> (But this makes me think, is it really the best way to do it?)
> Thus I propose the following:
> File "serious" bugs on each of the packages which depend on
> libexpat1, to build against libexpat1-dev, and
> build-depend on later version of libexpat1-dev.
This should probably be "grave"; "serious" is for policy violations.
> Add versioned Conflicts: to libexpat1,
> so that it won't be installed alongside with the packages which are
> compiled against older libexpat1.
I'll upload an adapted version of libexpat1 (need to close the bug
[snip list of packages]
I'll start filing the bug reports.
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: firstname.lastname@example.org
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9