Re: What happened to libmagick(++)5.5.7?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:51:20PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Daniel Kobras <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > The new version needs to be built and uploaded for all archs before the
> > old source package vanishes. The dangling old binary packages are
> > removed afterwards, and as far as I know, the removal needs to be
> > acknowledged manually, so there might be a short delay.
> OK, that clears up my understanding. So it is normal and expected
> that depending packages become briefly uninstallable when a soname
> changes, right? (And manual hinting will be necessary to propagate the
> new lib to testing after all users have been recompiled, or what?)
Alternatively, the maintainer of the library may choose to rename the
source package too, so that the old library packages stay around for
longer. There are contrary views on whether this is a good idea: on the
one hand, it simplifies migration to testing by a great deal and may
sometimes make life easier for people developing against the older
libraries if there's been a source API change; on the other hand, it can
reduce the momentum to perform the transition and runs the risk of us
having to keep several elderly library versions around, which
complicates security support.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]