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

Re: Upcoming QOF transition



+ Neil Williams (Sun, 03 May 2009 10:00:00 +0100):

Hello, Neil.

> I propose to:

> 1. Upload libqof1 0.7.5-2 (or possibly an upstream 0.7.6-1 branch) that
> creates a new package, qof-data to comply with Policy 8.2 and a set of
> new virtual packages (qof-backend-xml and qof-backend-sqlite -
> possibly qof-backend-gda) that are Provide:'d by the new backend
> plugins. (Applications depending on libqof1 or libqof2 are free to
> choose the storage mechanism used by QOF by specifying at least one
> backend and allowing the user to specify an "access method" like
> file:// or sqlite://).

> 2. Upload new upstream versions of gpe-expenses and pilot-qof that
> depend on the virtual backend package(s) instead of the actual backend
> names to make pilot-qof and gpe-expenses binNMU safe for the imminent
> QOF transition. Fix the issue with libqofexpensesobjects0 in the same
> gpe-expenses upload by adding a new package, libqofexpensesobjects-data.

> 3. Wait for Goedson to get a new release of gnotime into Debian with
> the upstream patches for libqof2, if that hasn't happened before
> packages from 1 and 2 clear NEW.

> 4. Upload libqof2 (QOF 0.8.0) and ask for binNMU's of gnotime, pilot-qof
> and gpe-expenses.

> Stages 1 and 2 will involve trips through NEW (the new upstream
> release of pilot-qof also introduces a few new packages).

> Please advise whether any of these stages need to wait for current or
> upcoming transitions and whether the plan itself is acceptable.

The plan sounds sensible. gnotime depends on the new libtool, but it's
not that worrysome, since I plan for libtool to migrate soon.

Additionally, have you considered going directly for libqof2 (0.8.0) in
step #1? You'd save one roundtrip to NEW altogether, and I don't think
it'd be much of a bad decision, plus by delaying #2 and #3 until #1
clears from NEW, you can completely do without Bin-NMUs (not that this
matters much, either).

Your choice, anyway. :-)

Cheers,

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
        -- Rory and Lorelai


Reply to: