2013-06-11 17:13 Barry deFreese:
On 6/11/2013 11:56 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:04:30AM -0400, Stephen M. Webb wrote: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...Perhaps what is not clear is that there is no old version. The SDL2 family of libraries is not a new version of the SDL family of libraries so much as a new set of incompatible libraries serving the same purpose, from the same people. There is no common code base and the libraries are one hundred percent parallel-installable.Ah, then this is a different case and I agree that it deserves an ITP.<snip> My only concern here is that while SDL2 is significantly different, there is an SDL team which ideally would be packaging it. Have they been contacted? I am actually a member of that team but admittedly have not been keeping up with it unfortunately. :(
(Sorry for the late reply, just back from holidays, I didn't pay attention to the list). The SDL team (of which Felix and me are part, and lately two of the main drivers) has been packaging libsdl2 snapshots and pre-release versions for a while, and now we're doing the same with pre-releases of "modules" (helper libraries on top of the base libsdl2, for images, sound, network...). http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-sdl-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org As explained by people in this thread, we started with new packages and fresh changelogs because these are indeed quite different from the stable 1.2 still in the archive -- which had remained almost unchanged for a decade or more. The new version diverts more from the previous than most forks (even if these have the same authors upstream). Both will co-exist for at least one, and probably several Debian stable releases. Lastly, the important license change of LGPL->zlib was actually decided to do at this time, even if the "modules" of 1.2 already changed to this license in recent point releases. Hopefully this clear things up a bit. Cheers. -- Manuel