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

Bug#548642: marked as done (transition: liblo)

Your message dated Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:07:10 +0100
with message-id <87zl1y5ej5.fsf@solon.marcbrockschmidt.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#548642: transition: liblo
has caused the Debian Bug report #548642,
regarding transition: liblo
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
548642: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=548642
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

New upstream liblo bumps SONAME, so we need to transition. Also, we take
this opportunity to change the -dev package name to unversion it.
liblo-dev now provides liblo0-dev to avoid breaking too many packages.
However, rosegarden and sineshaper have versioned build-dependencies on
liblo0-dev. They both require versions already in oldstable, so a simple
NMU dropping the versioning is enough for them. All other packages
should require binNMUs, and the new version is supposed to be API-compatible
with the old one.

Direct reverse dependencies:

ardour
csound
dssi
fluidsynth-dssi
freej
hexter
jamin
ll-scope
nekobee
qtractor
rosegarden*
sineshaper*
whysynth
wsynth-dssi
xsynth-dssi



-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <he@ftwca.de> writes:
> Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com> writes:
>> As far as I can tell, no reverse build-dep of liblo is involved in the
>> current ghc or hdf transitions. Can we upload new liblo to unstable and
>> schedule binNMUs?
> Yes, I guess so. Please go ahead.

It's now in testing. Wasn't smooth, but is finished now.

Marc
-- 
BOFH #78:
Yes, yes, its called a desgin limitation

Attachment: pgpbqfg6X3MOi.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: