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

Re: octave: I wonder about "Breaks: liboctave3v5, liboctave4, liboctave5"

Hi Paul,

Le mardi 02 octobre 2018 à 22:30 +0200, Paul Gevers a écrit :

> As you may know, I am one of the people working on autopkgtest
> integration in our migration process. Today, the new version of
> octave
> cause lots of regressions. While there is a transition going on, that
> may (or may not, I am unsure yet) be expected, but the way the test
> fail
> made me look around a bit.
> What I noticed is Breaks: liboctave3v5, liboctave4, liboctave5 in the
> octave binary package. Is this really needed? If so, do you care to
> explain? It seems to defeat on of the purposes of having shared
> libraries with different package names when the soname is bumped, as
> they are now not co-installable if you install octave.

First, please note that we introduced this Breaks after putting much
thought into it, building on the experience we had with many previous
transitions. This is not something that we have done just for fun or
out of ignorance, and if we were to remove it, problems would appear. 

Basically, the problem is that, for example, liboctave5 is not
functional with octave 4.4.1 (which ships liboctave6).

Without the Breaks relationship, it would be possible to install an
add-on, say octave-optim, compiled against liboctave5, while octave
itself would be at 4.4.1-2. Such a combination does not work, octave-
optim will crash at runtime. The Breaks is there to prevent such a
broken partial upgrade, and to make sure that the user upgrades to the
version of octave-optim recompiled against liboctave6.

Maybe there is a better solution to this problem than a Breaks, but we
have not found it so far. And actually the Breaks has worked pretty
well for previous transitions, so I don't see why it should not be the
case this time.

I think the autopkgtest problems that you mention will disappear when
the Release Team triggers the rebuilds. But feel free to tell us if
this is not the case.


⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  http://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  http://www.debian.org

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

Reply to: