[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [SCM] liblas annotated tag, upstream/1.6.0, created. upstream/1.6.0



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:51:58PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> 
[...]

I'm taking hobu into the loop because he kindly contacted me about 1.6
last month. Do you have any comments? I guess the liblas_c contains
the C binding while the liblas.so is C++ (?), but I could be wrong.
So maybe we should retain a versioned name for the C++ interface
to avoid possible future ABI breakage... Some clarifications about
the API roadmap for liblas would be great.

> Indeed, the SONAME is bumped.
> 1.6.0 builds liblas.so.2 and liblas_c.so.2 (and there are other differences,
> such as cmake instead of autotools).
> 
> The only reverse-dependency is python-liblas. So there's not even need to
> coordinate the transition with the RT.
> 
> However, 1.6.0 includes a python binding, which is identical to python-liblas
> 1.6.0. Better, it includes a testsuite and code examples.
> 
> libLAS 1.6.0 also includes C# bindings, which I believe worth building and
> distributing in binary packages.
> 
> Here's my proposed plan:
> 
>  1. prepare liblas-1.6.0, with SONAME bumped (liblas2), and new binary packages
>     (I still have to check the differences between liblas.so and liblas_c.so,
>     and if they deserve separate packages)
>  2. ask for removal of python-liblas
>  3. upload liblas to NEW
>  4. package gets ACCEPTED
>  5. PROFIT.
> 
> There's no need of Conflicts, Breaks or such other things, as the version is
> greater than the one currently in archive, so users will just see a new version
> of the python-liblas binary package (and they don't care about the originating
> source package).
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Kindly,
> David
> 



-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


Reply to: