On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 10:54:08AM +0100, Giuseppe Sacco wrote: > Hi Steve, > Il giorno dom, 27/11/2005 alle 00.06 -0800, Steve Langasek ha scritto: > [...] > > The postgis source package has already been removed from testing. In > > addition, the existing postgis source package is already libpostgis1; is > > there a good reason for renaming this source package? > Upstream release its source as 'postgis'. The maintainer would like to > provide a package for version 0.9.2 an a package for version 1.0.4. > He renamed the postgis-0.9.2 in 'postgis0' and postgis-1.0.4 in > 'postigs1' and now he create many binary packages that keep a '0' or '1' > in their names. Yeah, that's not really a good reason to change the source package name. All it does is add to inconsistency across Debian versions; at least one ftpmaster (Anthony Towns) has argued that gratuitous source package name changes, as this one appears to be, are grounds for rejection. > I proposed to only change the name of 0.9.2 and keep 1.0.4 as postigs, > but the maintainer will was different. No special reason, i think. I am > putting him in bcc so he may provide more information. Ok. > > I guess the binary package has changed names from libpostgis1-pg74 to > > libpostgis1-pg7.4, and this covers us for the C++ ABI transition? > The binary package keep the same name since it already included the '1'. > The library name is liblwgeom.so.1 for 1.0.4 (no change) and > libpostgis.so.0 for 0.9.2 (new library). - this is not the same binary package name. One is pg74, the other is pg7.4. - the '1' has *nothing* to do with this thread, which is about dealing with the g++ ABI change. - the libpostgis1-pg74 package is either a badly-structured (and badly named) shared library package, or it's a badly-structured plugin package. I can't tell which very easily, because the packaging is sufficiently wrong. If this is a shared library package, the library should be in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib/postgresql/lib/, there is a missing -dev package, and the package ought to be named liblwgeom1. If it's a plugin package, the use of an soname and shlibs is superfluous and misleading. And also would mean that no package rename is required. > There is probably no change for a real transition since the old package > had FTBFS bugs and hence it wasn't used that much. Some user where > subscribed to pkg-grass@alioth and already tested the new package and > developed an upgrade path. That's not really an acceptable rationale for not handling an ABI transition. If the package *exists*, the only reasonable assumption is that it has users; and those users deserve smooth transitions, because smooth transitions are part of what *makes* Debian an attractive system for users. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature