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

Re: libsilc package policy violations (bug #273871)

Robert McQueen wrote:
Tamas SZERB wrote:

once upon a time, I closed this bug. then the submitter reopened it,
so currently I don't give it a f*ck. Our opinion are different, so if
you feel any ambition to get the both sides together, feel free to
volunteer. :)

This package's violation of Debian policy on the packaging of shared
library packages is a fact, not an opinion. You have given no sound
reasons why this package is not correctly versioned, or given any
indication that you understand the issues at hand, such as how it is
expected to retain compatibility with existing packages when the API or
ABI undergoes changes (indeed, as it has just done upstream).

I saw this email to debian-devel and thought I would take a look at it to try to resolve the problem.

I must admit, I don't understand the problem with the versioning. Can you explain it to me further? The libsilc package seems to have similarly named lib* files as other gnome packages.

Could you help explain to me more clearly what the problem is with this package against debian 8.1 guidelines? After reading the bug report at bugs.debian.org It's still not clear to me how the package should be changed. It seems quite subtle. I tried comparing it to some of the libgnome* packages to see if I could determine what was correct, but it still wasn't clear to me.

Which one is a correct description of the problem?

1) the libsilc package should not contain /usr/lib/libsilc.so at all
2) the /usr/lib/libsilc* symlinks are not correct
	(wrong names or missing needed names)
3) /usr/lib/libsilcclient-1.0.so.2.1.0 is not the right name
4) the package itself is not the right name


Reply to: