Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:32:59 -0500
"Christian T. Steigies" <firstname.lastname@example.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
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
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org