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

Re: permission for ICU transition

Hi Jay,

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:07:05PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:

> ICU version 3.6 has been released.  I would like permission to upload
> it to unstable and cause an ICU library transition.  These source
> packages contain binary packages that depend upon libicu34:

>    boost
>    ibm-3270
>    openoffice.org
>    parrot
>    xerces27

> Only boost and xerces27 above are libraries.  Hopefully their
> dependencies are set up suitably to not themselves build depend upon
> libicu34-dev.  In any case, the ICU source interfaces appear to not
> have non-compatible API changes, though I haven't rigorously verified
> this.  It seems likely though that this transition will just be a
> question of updating build dependencies on the dependent packages.

If there are no incompatible API changes, wouldn't it be more
straightforward to continue building libicu34-dev from the icu source and
schedule binNMUs for the reverse-deps instead of renaming it to libicu36-dev
and requiring editing of build-deps?

> I would stay on top of this transition and be willing/able to NMU
> packages as needed.  The biggest and most visible package here is
> openoffice.org, but that package seems to be well-maintained.  Also, I
> emailed the maintainers of all these packages to alert them to the
> fact that there may be an ICU transition, and I uploaded a beta
> version of ICU 3.6 to experimental.

openoffice.org currently needs an upload for the libgcj7/libgcj7-0 ABI
transition.  I would prefer not to have this transition overlap the icu one,
but the icu transition is small enough that on its own it shouldn't cause
too much pain if they do overlap, so please go ahead with this upload on
whatever timetable is most appropriate for you.

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:43:06PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:

> Several days ago, I asked whether it would be okay to upload a new
> version of ICU with an soname bump.  Other than a message from the
> boost maintainer that he would be tracking ICU and would upload a new
> boost as soon as the new ICU appeared, I haven't heard anything.  I'm
> not sure whether I'm supposed to wait for an affirmative response from
> the release team or whether I'm supposed to just go ahead with the
> upload after informing the release team.  Please pardon me if I'm
> being impatient by asking again.  I was hoping to take care of this
> during the upcoming weekend.

Given that we aren't in a freeze yet that would affect icu, you don't have
any obligation to wait for the release team's approval before uploading; if
there had been any strong objections those probably would've come sooner
rather than later.  I do appreciate you letting us know about the
transition, though, and I'm sorry for keeping you waiting.

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/

Reply to: