On Sunday 08 June 2008 4:22:56 pm Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes: > > * Reinhard Tartler (siretart@tauware.de) [080608 21:51]: > >> Executive summary: the new package is basically an soname bump, all > >> reverse depends need to be rebuilt. This has been tested, only one > >> package is problematic: boson. We expect that this issue can be handled > >> befor the lenny release. > > > > Can we do it with an compatible package for the transition? (Which > > means: have both versions available for some time in testing and > > unstable, and transition the packages step by step) > > Just discussed on irc: > > 22:03:26 < siretart> aba: in principle, that should be doable. however, I'm > not sure if that makes sense. both packages provide an 'libopenal-dev' > package with headers, and I don't think you want to adjust packages to > switch from 'libopenal-dev' to some 'libopenal-soft-dev' header package, do > you? 22:03:56 < aba> siretart: just kill the -dev-package from the old > package 22:04:04 < aba> so packages will use the new one after being > rebuild 22:04:17 < siretart> aba: ah, right. that should be no problem > 22:05:56 < aba> siretart: so I would propose: you first upload a version of > the new lib into unstable without the -dev-package. After that migrated to > testing, you upload a new version of both libs to unstable where the > -dev-package changes source package 22:07:04 < aba> if you do it that way, > it isn't a transition we can worry about 22:07:18 < aba> (of course, we can > still schedule binNMUs) > 22:07:49 < siretart> aba: I could do that, however I see no much point in a > library package without any users. I'd therefore prefer to switch the -dev > package before openal-soft reaches testing. 22:07:59 < siretart> however if > you say that this is the way to go, no problem 22:08:25 < aba> siretart: > because it makes sure that no other package can be blocked if somehow the > package FTBFS or whatever else happens. 22:08:35 < aba> it just is "move > any potential blocker out of the way" 22:09:16 < siretart> okay, I see. > well, first it needs to get out of NEW anyways... 22:10:14 < aba> it > currently waits for experimental? > 22:10:54 < siretart> yes. because I didn't want to start a new transition > without talking to you 22:11:04 < siretart> I can reupload targeting to > unstable, if that helps 22:11:05 < aba> yep, good. > 22:11:13 < aba> yes, but please without the dev-package > 22:11:50 < siretart> okay, will do that > > -- > Gruesse/greetings, > Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 So in summary: 1. Upload openal-soft to unstable but without -dev package. 2. Wait for it to enter testing. 3. Once openal-soft enters testing, reupload openal-soft with -dev package and openal without -dev package. Is this correct? -- Regards, Andres
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.