Re: libpoppler3 missing in unstable

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

        Hi Dirk,

 I see you're concerned with the way we handle SONAME transitions.
 Please bring this up directly to the release team (Cc:-ed).

    Thanks,

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 10 March 2009 at 10:35, Lo c Minier wrote:
> |         Hi
> | 
> | On Mon, Mar 09, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > My pbuilder now fails as texlive-base-bin wants libpoppler3 which is no
> | > longer in unstable (but in testing) and texlive-base-bin has not yet been
> | > rebuilt against libpoppler4.
> | 
> |  Sorry to hear that; this is expected for transitions though.  BTW you
> |  might have preferred contacting the poppler@packages.qa.debian.org
> |  alias though as I'm not the uploader of this change ("who-uploads
> |  poppler").
> | 
> |  Wait until texlive-bin is built on your arch, or build one yourself
> |  locally -- but don't upload the resulting packages.
> | 
> |  https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=texlive-bin
> | 
> | > Could you re-upload libpoppler3 while the transition with texlive is sorted
> | > out? 
> | 
> |  No, that doesn't make sense; we're trying to transition to the new
> |  package name, we don't want to revert the change; also it would require
> |  reverting to the old upstream version, so an epoch, or two source
> |  packages which is extra load for maintainers and ftpmasters.  It's the
> |  usual way of doing SONAME transitions I'm afraid.
> 
> Not to my knowledge, and 14+ years experience in Debian. 
> 
> Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
> libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
> documentation. Was there a reason?
> 
> Dirk
> 
> -- 
> Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
> 

-- 
Loïc Minier