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

Re: RFS: poco (updated package)

Patrick Roland Gansterer writes:
> George Danchev:
> > I'm still waiting for an answer to this:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/12/msg00300.html
> Do you think that a symbols file will be the correct solution? I didn't
>  check the ABI history of poco, so i don't know if it is backward
>  compatible and if this is a goal of upstream.

Well, adding symbols files is meant to control what symbols appear and 
disappear with new releases. OTOH, apparently upstream bumps the soname, since 
they break the binary compatibility (at least) in the first place, so the 
question is why they break the it with their library effectively obliterating 
one of the contracts a well maintained production library should provided -- 
stable binary and programing interfaces (for instance we don't want libc doing 
so with each new release).

Krzysztof, clamfs needs to be rebuilt (binNMU [1]) against the latest poco 
library, too, since it now depends on libpocofoundation8 and libpoconet8 which 
will automatically disappear from the archive (deemed as cruft [2]).

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU
[2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/cruft-report-daily.txt

> > You are violating what is allowed in policy wrt Maintainer: field [1]. As
> > a result, that confuses lintian believing your upload is meant to be NMU
> I corrected it.
> > Is the original maintainer (CC'ed) aware of you being a co-maintainer?
> Yes, he is.

Okay, thanks.

> I also uploaded a new upstream version 1.3.6p1.

Uploaded with the last two changelog entries of yours included.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: