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

Re: checking shared lib sonames, potential mass-filing of bugs.

On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:59:55PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I've written a crude script to go through Contents-i386.gz file
> to find some suspiciously looking shared library packages.
> It does show up some false positives, but 
> there seem to be real problematic libraries around.

> There are many false positives, but here is a list:
> usr/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0 libs/libsdl1.2debian-all,libs/libsdl1.2debian-oss,libs/libsdl1.2debian-esd,libs/libsdl1.2debian-arts 0

I will welcome a bug (not RC please) regarding this.  It is on my private
list of things to fix at some point in the future.  I have not done so
before now because of the obvious problems with the fact that it would be
a confusing change and I only just inherited this package recently and it
is simply not acceptable to make this sort of change in the middle of a

I will be repackaging SDL with DBS at some point in the near future to
help me better manage patches against it, but the hospital stay has
obviously impeded my ability to work on it.  Also, I must admit I have
absolutely no ambition to learn how to use DBS and do all of this work
until woody is out the door since I have already made the decision not to
release such a thing until after woody was out, just in case.

Additionally, I will be packaging snapshots of SDL's CVS with a caveat:
the snapshot packages will have a permanent release-critical bug against
them to ensure that they are _never_ added to testing and released with
any version of Debian.  Those who develop with SDL are encouraged to run
the latest CVS version, but there may be bugs which the unwashed masses
should not be exposed to.  I figure if you're willing to run Debian
unstable and choose the option of having an unstable SDL as well, you
should be able to without risking breaking things in Debian otherwise.  I
will also be applying some of these patches from SDL's CVS to the Debian
packages if they don't change anything in a bad way, but generally only
bugfixes will I do this with, for obvious reasons.

The RC bug is necessary I think, Sam Lantinga has expressed concern that a
snapshot package may be released - this could be a potentially very bad
thing - the CVS snapshot we were using for awhile there had a small API
change which was reverted soon after and even that was in Debian for weeks
until pressing need caused Sam to branch off 1.2.4.  No programs started
using these changed API features (Though had they not been reverted so
quickly, I would have started doing so..)

Whoa, I got a bit off the subject there, sorry dancer..  I'd better add a
Cc for the SDL list.  =p

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>             Sooner or later, BOOM!
<Cylord> Would it be acceptable to debian policy if we inserted a crontab
         by default into potato that emailed bill.gates@microsoft.com
         every morning with an email that read, "Don't worry, linux is a

Attachment: pgpReNXvDkSPx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: