Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0->3.3.0 transition
+ Rafael Laboissiere (Sun, 10 May 2009 14:57:15 +0200):
> The upstream authors of SuiteSparse have released version 3.3.0. If we
> package this version for Debian, we will have to go through another
> library transition since the package will be named libsuitesparse-3.3.0.
> I gave a try at this new version and proposed  to split the libraries
> shipped in this package into individual packages, as has been done for
> COLAMD in the past (package name libcolamd-3.2.0).
I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. What you propose sounds
sane to me if you're willing to do the effort. With libcolamd split out
already, hence openoffice.org not being part of a suitesparse transition
more than when strictly necessary, it is less of a pressing issue (since
the rest of suitesparse's reverse dependencies have a less complex
dependency graph), but you're very welcome to do so.
> Please, tell us how we should procceed with this transition. I would guess
> that binNMUs would be enough but I am not sure about the upgradability of
> the whole thing.
Yes, Bin-NMUs should be enough. I see there are appropriate Replaces in
place, and I think that should be enough. I *think* the Conflicts are
not necessary, and I'm not sure whether they hurt or not; upgrdability
has never been my strong point, and in any case they're very common
Please upload at your convenience, and get back to us for Bin-NMUs.
- Are you sure we're good?
-- Rory and Lorelai