Re: gtkhtml soname change
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> Can you explain what the needed change was that required an SONAME bump
> here?
I don't know the details. I didn't call for it; it's gtkhtml that
did. Since there are only two packages using the library, and it's a
crufty old gnome-1 thing anyway, I wouldn't mind punting the upload I
did and uploading under the old name, even though that would be
technically wrong and might break users who actually have linked
against it. I find it extremely unlikely that this would actually
happen, but rather than run the risk, I followed the rules.
> Given the preceding happiness involving gnucash, I must say that I'm not
> enthusiastic about seeing another round of updates of this package for
> sarge, particularly when it's bound up with updates of 2-3 other
> packages. :)
gtkhtml 1.1 is what upstream gnucash says to use; they were
flabbergasted to hear that Debian is shipping the crap that used to be
there. I envision no problems. Here's what I think should happen
1) First, gnucash gets built.
2) Second, gnucash, grisbi, and libofx migrate into testing. This
would be a releasable state.
3) Then I build gnucash against the new gtkhtml.
If number (3) produces a gnucash with "problems", then that's ok;
number (2) is still releasable (unlike what we have now, which has a
grave bug capable of causing data-loss in an accounting package).
Because gnucash is being hosed by its incorrect priority (extra),
number (2) won't happen until the buildds have caught up. Which means
number (3) would be able to proceed without any serious problems,
provided the ftpmasters have installed gtkhtml by that point.
What can we do to help the ftpmasters out with the backlog in NEW
processing?
Thomas
Reply to: