Re: Bug#711570: ITP: libsdl2-mixer -- Mixer library for SDL2
On 11/06/13 03:27, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:31:07PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:17:26PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> * Package name : libsdl2-mixer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't this packaged already? You don't need to file WNPP bugs for SONAME
>>>>>>>> bumps...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a massive new major release. Think perl5 vs perl6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point isn't that "it's in the archive", the point is that "you don't
>>>>>> need to deal with WNPP for new upstream versions of stuff you're already
>>>>>> doing".
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was more of "it's going to be a new source package."
>>>> Which is countered by "you don't need an ITP lock for stuff already having
>>>> a maintainer".
>>>
>>> But the new source package doesn't have a maintainer until you upload it.
>> Are you afraid someone will start working on libsdl2 without asking the
>> maintainer of libsdl1?
>
> Not really, but I recall lintian complaining if you don't close an ITP in your
> first changelog entry. Doesn't hurt to just file an ITP anyway, right? It just
> makes your intention clear.
>
Normally you would keep the old version's changelog. But even if you don't,
there's no need for an ITP in cases like this, or when part of a package starts
to be shipped from a different source upstream. It's like opening an ITP for
every upstream release. You can still do it but people are going to complain if
it starts to happen very often...
And if somebody goes and uploads libsdl2 without talking to the libsdl
maintainers, that'd be a hijack. An ITP wouldn't change anything.
Emilio
Reply to: