Hi, On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:08:22AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Nicolas Boullis wrote: > > Cheers, > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 08:03:20AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > >> If you are sure that there are no API changes, then please upload to > >> unstable and tell us when you did so we can schedule binNMUs (as it does > >> not seem to interfere with existing transitions). > > > > I just played with diff over the header files and... unfortunately, > > there are some API changes. A few functions were removed (I guess nobody > > used them anyway), added (that should be no problem) or even changed > > (only one function, that had its return changed from int to an enum, > > which should be safe). > > > > Is it alright anyway? Or would you prefer to check if everything's > > alright with bin-NMUs to experimental? > > Just manually checking the builds of all reverse build dependencies with > the new version on one arch would also be fine. I checked all the packages that build-depend against libcdio-dev, libiso9660-dev, libudf-dev, libcdio-cdda-dev or libcdio-paranoia-dev, and all could be built without changing anything. Hence, I just uploaded libcdio 0.81-4 to unstable (I uploaded packages for i386, powerpc and sparc). Now, I think you can schedule binNMUs. Cheers, Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature