[DebianGIS] Re: Bug#385759: qgis: not installable in sid
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:34:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:27:48PM -0400, Steve Halasz wrote:
> > Does anyone have a response to Steve Langasek's query below?
>
> > The history of the gdal package naming decision is here:
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2005-December/001462.html
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2005-December/001498.html
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2006-January/001611.html
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2006-January/001645.html
>
> > I believe the -dev package is renamed to deal with the possibility of an
> > API change:
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2006-January/001622.html
>
> The mere *possibility* of an API change is not a good reason to rename a
> package; it causes more work for the release team to track such a
> transition, and more work for the maintainers who would otherwise not
> necessarily need to upload their packages at all.
>
> > This seems consistent with the recommendations at
> > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id271897
>
> Those recommendations are not endorsed by the release team, precisely
> because of the extra work they cause for no practical gain.
>
We will have possibility to discuss those question in the next few
days with upstream. I would be happy if we could come up with a simple
libgdal1-dev package in a few, now that 1.4 is in preparation...
I think we have anyway an issue with current gdal because both 1.3.1
and 1.3.2 should be installable at the same time, so 1.3.2 anyway
requires a revision :-/
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: