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

Bug#577101: marked as done (transition: libwpd8c2a -> libwpd-0.9-9 (and libwp{s,g}-0.1-1 -> libwp{s,g}-0.2-2))

Your message dated Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:10:51 +0100
with message-id <20110316161051.GL2933@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr>
and subject line Re: Bug#577101: transition: libwpd*8c2a -> libwpd*-0.8-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #577101,
regarding transition: libwpd8c2a -> libwpd-0.9-9 (and libwp{s,g}-0.1-1 -> libwp{s,g}-0.2-2)
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

577101: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=577101
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal


i'd like to finally fix libwpds package name (at least for the shared lib
packages) to fix the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning:

libwpd8c2a -> libwpd-0.8-8
libwpd-stream8c2a -> libwpd-stream-0.8-8

The .shlibs for libwpd8c2a says only "libwpd8c2a" so the r-deps of that
one will continue to work until rebuilt when we add a Provides:
"Affected" packages:

$ grep-available -FDepends libwpd -sPackage
Package: libwps-0.1-1
Package: kword
Package: libwpg-dev
Package: wpd2sxw
Package: wpg2odg
Package: abiword
Package: libwpd-tools
Package: libwps-dev
Package: openoffice.org-draw
Package: wps2sxw
Package: libwpd8-dev
Package: libwps-tools
Package: openoffice.org-writer
Package: inkscape

Some of them depend on libwpd8-dev, though which doesn't change its name

[ If we really want, we can schedule bin-NMUs for all of them, but
I don't think that's needed ]

The .shlibs for libwpd-stream8c2a has a version, though[1], so a simple
Provides: won't work there (I'll add one anyway).
Thankfully this only affects 3 binary packages:
$ grep-available -FDepends libwpd-stream -sPackage
Package: wpd2sxw
Package: libwpd-tools
Package: libwpd8-dev

The last two are libwpd source package itself and wpd2sxw is in writerperfect,
which is only one additional package to change.

OK to upload libwpd and writerperfect?



[1] though fullfillable even in stable

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 13:55:35 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:

> squeeze+1 probably will get a libwpd 0.8->0.9 change with API/ABI-changes
> anyway (and with it a 0.1->0.2 transition for libwp{s,g}).. I am not
> yet sure whether I am going to upload libwpd 0.9 (and libwp{s,g} 0.2) to sid
> before squeeze (we need them in parallel anyways in the beginning of squeeze+1,
> I don't think all apps will switch quickly)
Done now.


--- End Message ---

Reply to: