Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:32:59 -0500
"Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org> wrote:
> > It might be worthwhile to adjust the shlibs of libsdl-image1.2,
> > though (to tighten the dependency of binary packages)
> > Otherwise people could upgrade the recompiled packages without
> > upgrading sdl-image.
>
> Somehow I haven't seen a consensus here yet. Do I update the soname or not?
> Do I create a separate package or not?
You need to update the soname, and create a different package.
> As I understand it, we need another package to have both versions of the
> library.
Well, the old library can be "deprecated".
> But if both are to be installed at the same time, the soname has to
> be different. If the soname is different, we break compatibility with
> upstream? Another can of worms...
The upstream needs to be notified, and upstream needs to fix it.
Debian will try to help upstream through sending patches, and
coordinating.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: