On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 19:14 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Afair the outcome was that it was ok to rename to libsasl2-2 and > libsasl2-2-dev so I guess ther has been a small misunderstanding. This was my understanding also. > On 2006-11-29 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > Anyway, that's not a blocking issue by any means; it just makes me a little > > nervous to hear about maintainers switching to build-depending on this new > > package name, which is by its nature far less stable than the existing > > libsasl2-dev name. > > I see. The ABI might change (soname bump) but the API would not > necessarily break that horribly that renaming the dev-package is > called for, stuff would just need to be rebuilt. - Using the soname in > the dev-package's name would break that. Fair enough. I'll drop libsasl2-2-dev and we'll stick with libsasl2-dev only. If anyone has objections, please raise them now. Also, if you know of any packages that now depend on or are considering a change to libsasl2-2-dev, please let them know that they should stick to the libsasl2-dev name. -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part