Re: Package libburn-1.4.2.pl01.tar.gz as 1.4.2-2 or as 1.4.2.pl01-1 ?

["Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net>]

Hi,

Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> (well, you might want to ask upstream to call it 1.4.2.1 maybe?)

[Changing hats.]
I am the upstream myself. .pl01 is tradition. What's wrong with it ?
[Changing hats again.]

(Upstream is not unteachable. Just would need to be convinced.)


i wrote:
> > The binary package which actually bears the bug is cdrskin_1.4.2-1.

> mmm  ok, so a sort of shared library issue.

Rather in contrary.
Upstream libburn-*.gz contains code for libburn.so and for the
executable binary /usr/bin/cdrskin, which offers a CLI roughly
compatible to wodim and cdrecord. It uses libburn.so to operate
an optical drive.

The bug is in the code of cdrskin, outside of libburn.so.

So technically, the binary packages libburn4, libburn-dbg, libburn-dev,
and libburn-doc do not need to be changed. But they are all derived
together with cdrskin from
  https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libburn


>  ABI/API safe,

The last (inadverted) wreakage of ABI was in february 2007.
I got the SONAME numbering right not before january 2008.
Since then i broke many things, but neither API nor ABI.


> dpkg --compare-versions

You mean this test ?

  $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.4.2.pl01-1 gt 1.4.2-1 && echo yes
  yes
  $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.4.2.pl01-1 lt 1.4.4-1 && echo yes
  yes
  $ 

So it would fit between the current package and the first one
of the future upstream release libburn-1.4.4. (1.4.3 is for
development between releases.)


I am waiting for the new upstream tarball to be recognized by
uscan and reported to the package tracker. Hopefully it will be
found until tomorrow evening CET.

If no objections arise until then, i will go for 1.4.2.pl01-1
from upstream tarball libburn-1.4.2.pl01.tar.gz.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas