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

Re: possible mass-filing of bugs, continued, script refined: list of packages that apparently have disparity between package name and shared lib soname



On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:31:37PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Here is a script (requires Contents.gz and Packages.gz, not perfect)

[..]

> And the list.

[..]
> Maintainer: Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>	usr/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0 libs/libsdl1.2debian-all,libs/libsdl1.2debian-oss,libs/libsdl1.2debian-esd,libs/libsdl1.2debian-arts 0

This is a partially false positive, obviously.  Why is it that I always
end up adopting packages whose names/versions/whatever break policy and
there's never a convenient way to fix it, hmm?  Oi.  I'm willing to fix
this, with some caveats:

 1. I'm not totally convinced this is worth fixing.  A mass recompile is
    never fun for anyone.  Also, there are a few old versions of SDL in
    the archive which will have to go.  No Debian packages use these as
    far as I know, and the SDL ABI has not changed in an incompatible way,
    but I am not 100% positive that the same can be said of SDL_image,
    SDL_mixer, SDL_net, etc.  I need to become sure before proceeding.
    Doing otherwise would be massively confusing for our users and
    developers alike.
    
    If consensus here is that it needs fixing in spite of the above, then
    I shall do so in sid.

 2. I was one of the people who griped and complained about the single
    monolithic SDL in Debian for over a year.  The depends list for SDL
    was simply ridiculous before.  Upstream would argue that the build
    deps list still is, but he understands why we do it.  ;)  I will not
    go back to a monolithic SDL package, but I'm not opposed to
    libsdl-oss0 and friends which provide a symlink to libSDL.so.0 and
    libSDL.so.0.2, as upstream ships it.

 3. I absolutely won't do any of this until woody is out and I have the
    CDs in hand to prove it.  Currently I can build woody packages on my
    sid system and test them here, if I go changing things around I won't
    be able to do that.  I just spent three days downloading packages to
    reinstall this sid system at 3-4k/sec and I'm not going through all of
    that again to build a woody chroot.  When I can install one from CD
    and keep it up to date with small downloads as needed with stable, I
    will be happy to go and change things in sid as much as people like.
    I'm just not willing to be without a way to fix the woody packages if
    need be while the security team figures out how the hell they're going
    to manage security fixes for eleven archs, almost half of which I
    don't actually care about personally.  (s390?  You people are mad.)


If you've got a problem with the above, now's the time to say so.  (Of
course, it's likely nobody will.  No, they'll wait until after most or all
of the work involved is done and _then_ complain they don't like it..)

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>                This thing is an AI
 
<Mercury> You don't have to be crazy to be a member of the project, but
          you will be.. <=:]

Attachment: pgp8qtywdtehJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: