On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > Hi Ming, Steve, others, > On Tuesday 29 November 2005 11:03, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:09:00AM -0600, Ming Hua wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:28:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > * Rename and rebuild the libraries listed below. The new suffix for > > > > these packages should be in any case "c2a" (instead of "c2"). No > > > > new suffix is needed when the soname changes in a new upstream > > > > upload. > > > I noticed that atlas-cpp with renamed library packages has been > > > uploaded, and it renames the binary packages as follows: > > > libatlas-cpp-0.6-0 => libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2 > > > libatlas-cpp-0.6-0-dbg => libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2-dbg > > > I have two questions for this: > > > 1. Should -dbg packages be renamed or not? > > I don't see any reason to rename the -dbg packages, generally. > For the first cxx transition during Breezy development, I renamed > libatlas-cpp-0.5 to libatlas-cpp-0.5c2 because this was our plan. Every > package without c102 (from old ABI changes) will get c2 and the other library > packages with a c102 suffix, the c102 will be removed. > For Debian there was another decision, and it's in the responsibilty of the > Debian package maintainer, if he wants to rename or not. (If I recall the > mail correctly). Absolutely not. Renaming of library packages on ABI change is mandatory in Debian, just as it was for Ubuntu. Anyway, the fact that there was never a c102 version of libatlas-cpp-0.6 in Debian or Ubuntu certainly cuts down on the chances of there being an incompatible libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2 package in the wild. So it's not *crucial* that this package be named -0.6-0c2a, but it would be nice to not have gratuitous inter-distro incompatibilities when they can be avoided. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature