Re: libgtop2 debian package (i am not the official maintainer).
Hi Kevin, Sven,
I released 2.0.2 to a) get the security fix incorporated, and b) get
translations released. I don't understand the code and I was strictly
just making the release.
If I bumped the soname, I've ****ed up. Binary compatibility has not
changed. I'm not sure how I did it, though:
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gnome/libgtop/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.88.4.22.2.21
retrieving revision 1.88.4.22.2.34
diff -u -r1.88.4.22.2.21 -r1.88.4.22.2.34
--- configure.in 13 Jan 2003 02:57:51 -0000 1.88.4.22.2.21
+++ configure.in 11 May 2003 14:36:23 -0000 1.88.4.22.2.34
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
LIBGTOP_MAJOR_VERSION=2
LIBGTOP_MINOR_VERSION=0
-LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION=1
+LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION=2
LIBGTOP_VERSION=$LIBGTOP_MAJOR_VERSION.$LIBGTOP_MINOR_VERSION.$LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION
AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libgtop, $LIBGTOP_VERSION)
LIBGTOP_INTERFACE_AGE=1
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@
AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getcwd gettimeofday getwd putenv strdup strtoul uname)
dnl ## 'es_ES' is only needed for format numbers different of 'es'
-ALL_LINGUAS="az be bg ca cs da de el es es_ES fi fr ga gl hu ja ko lv
ms nl nn no pl pt pt_BR ru sk sl sv tr uk vi zh_CN zh_TW"
+ALL_LINGUAS="am ar az be bg ca cs da de el es es_ES et fa fi fr ga gl
he hu id it ja ko lv mk ml mn ms nl nn no pl pt pt_BR ro ru sk sl sr
sr@Latn sv tr uk vi zh_CN zh_TW"
GETTEXT_PACKAGE=libgtop-2.0
AC_SUBST(GETTEXT_PACKAGE)
... and those are the only changes in configure.in.
Kevin, could you look at this? I don't know how the soname changed, so
don't know how to fix it. I'm lame.
Sorry, guys. Please keep me informed.
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 21:46, Kevin Vandersloot wrote:
> Hi Sven. I'm cc's Andrew Sobala who actually produced the latest
> release. I believe that binary compatibility was not broken between the
> two releases, so the soname change is probably not warrented.
>
> I'm not sure about 2) :(
>
> To clarify Bastien's comments: I'm kinda the maintainer right now since
> I wrote GNOME System Monitor and noone remains to maintain libgtop.
> Unfortunately I know very little about the libgtop code and am a little
> afraid to mess with it ;)
>
> I think everyone agrees that a replacement would be nice (especially
> since libgtop doesn't build on Solaris ATM). Otherwise we need someone
> to step in and really maintain the code. I don't really have to time to
> do it. However, right now there is no replacement available so there is
> no plan to move to a different library.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
> On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 08:29, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Sven,
> >
> > You said that you contacted upstream, but Martin hasn't been upstream
> > for libgtop for about 2 years. Contact either Kevin Vandersloot (or
> > myself in very very last resort) for problems about libgtop.
> >
> > libgtop is a piece of crap that needs to die, and that nobody wants to
> > take care of.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 10:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > libgtop2 is currently broken in debian unstable, and Noèl Köthe is too
> > > busy to fix it right now. I maintain packages that depend on libgtop2
> > > and also use others that depend on libgtop2. All these packages have
> > > become unusable since libgtop2 broke.
> > >
> > > I am then trying to prepare a non-maintainer-upload of libgtop2, and
> > > have noticed the following problems :
> > >
> > > 1) The soname of libgtop2 did change in 2.0.2 from 2.0.1 (from
> > > libgtop-2.0.so.0 to libgtop-2.0.so.1). But no mention of this is made
> > > in the ChangeLog. So, the question is this soname change warranted,
> > > because the binary incompatibility did change, or spurious and should
> > > be reverted.
> > >
> > > 2) I noticed that the libgtop2 libraries are built, not against the
> > > libraries currentyl building, but against the installed ones, which is
> > > severly broken, as libgtop-2.0.so.1.0.1 is linked to the older
> > > libgtop_common-2.0.so.0 and libgtop_sysdeps-2.0.so.0, which naturally
> > > don't work once the package is installed.
> > >
> > > This second point, i have had a quick look but i was not able to quickly
> > > fix the build system so this doesn't happen, maybe you could provide me
> > > some insight or hint on how to fix this (or even a patch or new
> > > release ?).
> > >
> > > Hope you don't mind my comments and questions, and again, i am not the
> > > debian maintainer of this package, and Noel may well know these things
> > > already.
> > >
> > > Friendly,
> > >
> > > Sven Luther
> > --
> > Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>
--
Andrew Sobala <aes@gnome.org>
"We made GNOME-VFS support smb: and nfs: URIs. And we made OOo support
GNOME-VFS. Booyakasha!" -- nat
Reply to: