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

Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Cyril,

AFAICT the primary ABI change between these versions is that upstream
has depreciated longs and replaced with ints in an effort to
standardise lengths across platforms.

Assuming updating the Build-depends field in debian/control (to
reflect the new package name) is not counted as a source change:

On 26/01/12 22:18, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Jonathan McCrohan <jmccrohan@gmail.com> (26/01/2012):
>> apt-rdepends lists the following reverse dependencies:
>> 
>> libconfig8 Reverse Depends: guestfish (1:1.14.8-3)
binNMU

>> Reverse Depends: guestmount (1:1.14.8-3)
binNMU

>> Reverse Depends: libconfig8-dev (= 1.3.2-2)
Not relevant. libconfig9-dev as part of upload.

>> Reverse Depends: libguestfs-tools (1:1.14.8-3)
binNMU

>> Reverse Depends: lldpad (0.9.43+git20111215.c0498b-1)
binNMU

>> Reverse Depends: qwo (0.5-2)
Unable to check, FTBFS bug (#657562)

>> Reverse Depends: sitplus (1.0.1-2)
Source change required to fix long to int conversion.

>> Reverse Depends: yubiserver (0.1-1)
binNMU

>> 
>> libconfig++8 Reverse Depends: flush (0.9.11-2)
binNMU

>> Reverse Depends: ldc (0.9.1+hg1634-1)
Unable to check, FTBFS bug (#657566)

>> Reverse Depends: libconfig++8-dev (= 1.3.2-2)
Not relevant. libconfig++9-dev as part of upload.

>> Reverse Depends: libffado2 (2.0.99+svn1995-3)
binNMU

Regards,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPIffBAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53bBrEH/1DGGl7XjoCiA8yYkAkmqGQ1
hBkLIraEgYQB0FsD9PrZu9Qok27r9AoJjWeMrbzTPQFNW0F+9piAKhNzOR9GW3qb
0Ola0XlJs6849XfPjKcUDlVDcn0Vu4tyv1OnmjJgOva3F3ST6Pxb4JpCvoR0ifBO
6NlMBEWtNb9/GllMhsJXPUEwcLuXiRrdA95oNMau6RvNk9DWlJmakDCDeCu/0/Ow
UhN2dd+By6Y1kZmRGKPEjEl2zCDOgRT0o/7ITQwkFhSgorTTEjfp4eYAvXdlzYnh
ePgChN0Ua3zbqLMDCqWm46FVyOWl6275HnHLDFJArF8LPENv8MX5d947xLn8XVM=
=eQlI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: