On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:43:16AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 23:34:37 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > If the API has changed, as Nobuhiro states above, it would be > > incorrect for the new -dev package to provide the old, wouldn't it? > > No. It would only be incorrect if the plan was to keep libpng12-dev > around as a real package. I'd have to disagree. If I install something named libpng12-dev, I'd expect it to have the same API as it always had. This is untrue for libpng 1.5. > > Nor can the provides be temporary; it would have to last until all the > > build-depends were changed, wouldn't it? > > > That's what temporary means. Touche. The phrase I wanted was "short term". > > Wouldn't it be better, instead, to leave both old and new -dev > > packages in the archive until all 123 dependent packages are fixed? > > > There are 400 reverse dependencies of libpng. I don't think source > changes to all of them (most just to switch a build-dependency) is a > good plan. I don't know if most are just switching a build-dependency. I saw quite a number with serious changes; e.g. the new version has hidden at least one formerly-exposed class. If you really switch libpng12-dev, you instantly make these all unbuildable. Can we not keep both APIs around until all the upstreams switch over to the new API? This keeps everyone building and able to switch at the proper pace. Thanks, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature