On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 17:16:03 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 04:27:41PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > BTW, without annoying all of you with a so looooooong history about > > this issue, I'm going to introduce a new libgdal1h binary package (h means hidden, better > > suggestions are welcome :)), with a new SONAME libgdal.1h to manage a decent migration > > to the new flavor. This will sacrifice third-parties sw compatibility, but > > well, who cares? It would be break anyway. > > > > Maybe a better choice in this specific case would be introducing a new > binary package (libgdal1h) that Conflicts/Breaks against libgdal1 and provides > the usual library with the usual name/soname. Of course, that will force a lot of bNMUs > and an explicit unblocking set to complete the transition properly. Make sense? I must admit from your mails I don't really understand what your plan is. Do the packages currently in experimental follow that plan? Thanks, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature