Re: Your recent sqlite3 and neon27 uploads
Hi,
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 22:31 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 20:10 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > The package descriptions of libneon27{,-gnutls} say "WARNING: THE NEON
> > API IS NOT YET STABLE" so removing the versioning entirely might not be
> > a good idea; on the basis that there don't appear to have been any
> > obvious API changes since the version currently in squeeze, [...]
> This sounds like a very strict warning. The full story continues as:
> "The neon API is subject to backwards-incompatible change over minor
> versions (0.24.x -> 0.25.x) but is stable across patch releases (0.24.0
> -> 0.24.x)."
> It's not completely true for a while now. The API changed since 0.24.0
> to 0.25.0 and to 0.26.0 ... That's why there were neon24, neon25 and
> neon26 packages. As of 0.27.0, the API remained exactly the same to
> 0.28.0 and 0.29.0 even and still it is as 0.29.5 .
Hmmm, might it be worth toning down the all-caps warning then? :)
> > how about
> > something like:
> You mean leave 0.29.5 in the archive as is, but with shlibs as 0.29.3 ?
> Like I prepared the package[1] and as debdiff[2] shows?
Sorry if I've introduced any confusion here. To be honest, my thought
was more toward re-introducing 0.29.3, hence the mention of a
0.29.5really0.29.3 "upstream" source version. Thinking about it a
little more though, if we go for that route then having the shlibs set
to use the fake upstream version (or none at all if we just drop -V as
per your earlier suggestion) doesn't particularly matter.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: