Re: GDAL/OGR 1.11.0
On 10/01/2014 09:14 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Bas,
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 08:30:39AM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 09/07/2014 07:16 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>> The libgdal1h C++ symbols files now use an alternative dependency
>>> template to depend on the upstream version specific virtual package
>>> provided by libgdal1h. This change was suggested by the Release Team to
>>> better track dependencies on the unstable C++ ABI. See:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756867#40
>>
>> The alternative dependency is not as helpful as I had hoped. Since we've
>> not received feedback from the release team, and the transition hasn't
>> been confirmed, I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen in time for
>> jessie anymore.
>
> If the release team just has not answered (for whatever reason) I'd
> rather ping again (is there an according thread on
> debian-release@l.d.o?). As far as I understood no *new* transition
> should be done but I'd consider this as an *ongoing* transition.
The transition bug is also a thread on debian-release, see my last post
for example:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2014/09/msg00158.html
Because the transition bug is not tagged confirmed, I don't think the
Release Team considers it an ongoing transition.
If we'd use the alternative dependency on the C symbols too, it would
allow us to check if a package was rebuild with a newer version of GDAL.
But also requires a rebuild of every reverse dependency for every gdal
minor update (e.g. 1.11.0 to 1.11.1). This may not be such a big issue,
since most packages use some C++ symbols anyway, so binNMUs of those
packages are required anyway. The few packages that only use the C
symbols will be rebuild unnecessarily, but that may not be a problem.
> Please let me know if I somehow can help here.
Thanks for the offer, I'll let you know when there is.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: