The next upload of libpisock9 will Breaks: many packages

[Ludovic Rousseau <ludovic.rousseau@free.fr>]

Hello,

The new upstream version of pilot-link 0.12.4 is not ABI backward 
compatible. And upstream broke the ABI and forgot to change the soname.

I reported a bug to every Debian package depending on libpisock9 asking 
for recompiling with libpisock9 0.12.4 instead of 0.12.3.
  pilot-qof (libpilotobjects0) #535661
  claws-mail #535662
  evolution ( evolution-plugins-experimental evolution-plugins ) #535664
  gnome-pilot ( gnome-pilot-conduits ) #535666
  kpilot ( kdepim-kfile-plugins ) #535667
  mhc-utils #535668
  opensync-plugin-palm #535669
  sylpheed #535670

The kpilot maintainer suggested to use Breaks: in libpisock9 to avoid 
problems. I am implementing this solution right now.

So the next upload of libpisock9 (source package pilot-link) will break 
many packages in unstable:
  claws-mail (<= 3.7.2-1),
  evolution (<= 2.26.3-2),
  evolution-plugins (<= 2.26.3-2),
  evolution-plugins-experimental (<= 2.26.3-2),
  gnome-pilot (<= 2.0.15-2.4),
  gnome-pilot-conduits (<= 2.0.15-1.2),
  jpilot (<= 1.6.2.4-2),
  jpilot-backup (<= 0.60-2),
  kpilot (<= 4:4.2.4-1),
  libpda-pilot-perl (<= 0.12.4-2),
  libpilotobjects0 (<= 0.1.9-1),
  libpisock-dev (<= 0.12.4-2),
  libpisync1 (<= 0.12.4-2),
  mhc-utils (<= 0.25.1+20090120-1),
  opensync-plugin-palm (<= 0.22-2),
  pilot-link (<< 0.12.4-2),
  pilot-qof (<< 0.1.9-1),
  python-jppy (<= 0.0.47-1.1),
  python-pisock (<= 0.12.4-2),
  python-pisock-dbg (<= 0.12.4-2),
  sylpheed (<= 2.6.0-3+b1)

Some packages are already rebuild so the use of << instead of <= to 
compare the versions.

Rebuilding these packages will then be mandatory and "urgent".


Questions:
==========

- Does dpkg in Debian lenny supports Breaks: already? It looks like 
Breaks is supported since dpkg 1.14.6 and Lenny has 1.14.25. So it 
should be safe to use Breaks now. Right?

- Should I upload libpisock9 _now_ and break these packages?
 Note that this will break gnome and gnome-desktop-environment

- Should I change the priority of the bug reports from normal to grave 
(making them RC)? In the hope of a faster response from their maintainer.

- Should I request for an "automatic" binNMU of the packages?

Thanks

--
 Dr. Ludovic Rousseau