Re: Should DMs be allowed to upload to NEW
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Romain Beauxis <email@example.com> wrote:
> Le Wednesday 16 April 2008 15:44:56 Neil Williams, vous avez écrit :
>> An upload of a new application is nowhere near as complex as the upload
>> to start a library SONAME transition. Even uploading a new library never
>> seen in Debian before is easier than starting a SONAME transition for a
>> library that already exists. I'm sorry, merely by equating those two you
>> have lost all credibility in my eyes.
> Why should he have to gain any credibility in your eyes ? Were you about to
> help him dealing with this ?
>> It's not just about trust, it is about coordination, planning and
>> ability. If you think that a SONAME transition is no more disruptive
>> than a new application then I have cause to worry about your ability to
>> maintain a library in Debian in the first place. It doesn't give me any
>> confidence in you or in DMs in general.
> Well, ok SONAME is a dangerous thing, warning, warning !!
> In the mean time, it's still possible for a DM to upload a different soname in
> the same binary package, which would result in an even worse mess, right ?
> I don't like your tone, it's pedantic, because somehow it's legitimate to ask
> this kind of questions regarding the potential harm he already has the right
> to do with the DM upload rights. And I believe you didn't even look at his
> package (neither did I by the way...)
In the meantime the package was fixed by a DD with enough upload
rights. But let me explain the situation:
Libmesh is a library whose last version in debian at the time of
writing the above email was
0.6.1, and the binary packages are called
libmesh0.6.1 - libMesh - A C++ Finite Element Library
libmesh0.6.1-dev - libMesh - A C++ Finite Element Library
libmesh0.6.1-pure - libMesh - A C++ Finite Element Library
libmesh0.6.1-pure-dev - libMesh - A C++ Finite Element Library
now upstream has released libmesh0.6.2, so the packages will be named
libmesh0.6.2. Those were already uploaded to Debian, so all is fine.
The thing is that upstream releases, e.g. 0.6.2 and 0.6.1 are not
really binary compatible, so one
has to bump the soname. The above scheme is the same as for the petsc packages:
So new upstream versions of these packages always go to NEW.