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

Re: permission for ICU transition

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> 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?

Well, there are lots of new APIs.  Anyway, I feel like it would be
better to have the name be neutral (like libicu-dev) if we are going
to drop the soname from the -dev package rather than having it be
called libicu34-dev which seems somehow misleading.  There are also
some deprecated interfaces from 3.4, so it is still my inclination to
go ahead and rename the -dev package and have the new -dev package
conflict with the old one.

>> 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.

Okay, thanks.  I'll upload when ready, though I'll look at the
transition you mentioned before doing so.  Given that I'm heading into
a busy period and the ICU transition is, as you point out, small, I
may do the upload anyway.

> 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.

Thanks, and no problem. :-)


Reply to: