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

Bug#633486: marked as done (transition: libdbi)

Your message dated Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:14:49 +0200
with message-id <[🔎] 20110822111449.GA2402@spike.0x539.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#633486: transition: libdbi
has caused the Debian Bug report #633486,
regarding transition: libdbi
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.)


-- 
633486: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=633486
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

Hi,

A new version of libdbi has been uploaded, which includes an ABI
incompatibility with previous version, and an soname bump. (This ABI
incompatibility was due to an unfortunate mistake by upstream autor in the
enum error numbers, if I remember right.)

If you need libdbi in your package, please note that you should switch from
depending on libdbi0-dev (which was the name of the package when I took over
maintainership because of the previous maintainer was gone MIA) to the more
standard libdbi-dev instead. Because of this, a source-full upload with this
fix will be prefered over a binNMU, even if the latest version of libdbi-dev
has a Provides: libdbi0-dev.

Also, I would like to use this opportunity to ask for co-maintainership for
the following reasons:
- I don't really use libdbi myself
- I took over because of a MIA previous maitainer, and because it was one
of the build-dependency for another package that I maintain (mod_log_sql).
- I don't feel very comfortable with this complex package to do it alone.
- I maintain quite a bunch of packages in Debian already, and I fear to not
have enough time to maintain libdbi correctly. This has created issues
already, and I don't want it to happen again.
- libdbi has a quite high score in popcon, showing that it is an important
package that deserves the love and care of more than a unique maintainer.

Note that I'm not orphaning the package yet, as I still feel I can help (I
did design the test suite calls for libdbi-drivers, together with the Ubuntu
maintainer, which was quite some work), but only asking if others would like
to share the responsibility of this package.

So if you'd like to co-maintain libdbi with me, please get in touch, and I'll
take the necessary steps (move of the git to colab-maint, etc.).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.2
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 07:10:53PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Last I looked it was coupled with ruby1.9.1 through ruby-gnome2.  (Which
> > SAT-Britney cannot detect because it assumes that you can keep old libraries in
> > testing.)
> ruby-gnome2 shouldn't be an issue any more, as it got updated via t-p-u.
> However:
>     Depends: rrdtool/amd64 ruby1.9.1 (not considered)
 
I forced ruby1.9.1 in, and hence this transition is done.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: