Re: BinNMUs request for rpm transition
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 08:53:54PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 03:08:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Why does librpm4 have shlibs that require rebuilds of reverse dependencies
> >when there is no change in the library sonames?
> Hello Steve,
> Joey Hess put the following comments in debian/rules long time ago
> when he was the rpm maintainer.
> # Remember to update after upstream releases. The whole soname is
> # in the library names, so this mess is called for.
> dh_makeshlibs -V"librpm4 (>= 4.0.4), librpm4 (<< 4.0.5)"
But the current soname of librpm is librpm-4.4.so, not librpm-4.4.x.so, so
the correct shlibs would appear to at most be "librpm4 (>= 4.4),
librpm (<< 4.5)"; and anyway, as described in Policy 8.1, the package name
here should be librpm4.4 rather than librpm4.
I would like to see this issue fixed first, rather than scheduling binNMUs
for the reverse-deps now and then again when the library's name/shlibs have
been fixed.
> >(... and why is the package in unstable numbered with a Debian revision of
> >-0?)
> Why is that a problem?
It's not the convention, so it leaves people uncertain whether the package
is an NMU or a maintainer upload or something else...
--
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: