Re: libtiff 3.7.0 for sarge?
I agree with the suggestion to upload first to experimental, but I'll
respond anyway.
> > * 3.7.0 is definitely binary compatible with 3.6.1, so no library
> > transition is required
>
> Does this mean that no new functions have been added and the
> shlibs will not need to be changed, or does it just mean that the
> package name will not need to be changed? Even an shlibs bump is
> problematic at this point, because any problems discovered in
> libtiff after upload can cause delays for other packages that are
> also trying to get into testing right now. This wouldn't rule it
> out entirely, but it means the timing of any upload would need to
> be coordinated.
I just means the package name will not need to be changed. This won't
be libtiff.so.4.0.0, but it will still be libtiff.so.4.
> > * Other big packages, like GNOME 2.8, are going into Sarge.
>
> Which doesn't carry much weight as an argument; updates should be
> decided on individual technical merits.
Right, of course. Sorry to imply otherwise. :-) My original thinking
was to wait until Sarge because I had understood that no new upstream
versions were supposed to go in. The comment about GNOME here was
only to indicate that I see that the no new upstream versions rule is
not absolute. I should have been more clear about this. I don't mean
to imply that GNOME 2.8's inclusion in any way increases the merits of
tiff 3.7.0 going in. Stated differently, it is an argument for me to
look at this on its own merits rather than an argument for the release
team to consider releasing it. But I ramble.
I'll go ahead and prepare packages for upload to experimental.
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
Reply to: