Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Hi Adam,
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt
<adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.
>> Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to
>> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable
>
> Apparently the lack of an explicit "no" - having waited less than a week
> - was taken as an implicit "yes". That's unfortunate, given that it
> means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono
> transition which we were very close to finishing.
I am truly sorry for any mess I am responsible for.
> I'm hoping that we can resolve that without either having to delay mono
> for a while longer or asking for a temporary reversion to gdcm 2.0. In
> the meantime, if you wouldn't mind holding off on further uploads of
> gdcm unless any serious issues arise that would be appreciated.
I completely understand your point and I will not upload any new gdcm.
In any case if you decide to revert to gdcm 2.0 watch very carefully
for #657288 since it introduce a change in the API without any SONAME
bump.
I initially made the very first upload of gdcm 2.2 because of #657779,
which I thought would help in the mono transition. I choose to upload
directly 2.2.0 (vs a gdcm 2.0.19) since it clearly state the SONAME
bump and I assume this would make the life of everybody else much
easier. In particular I assumed having gdcm 2.2 would help the ITK4
transition, also debated on debian-release [1].
Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my request for gdcm transition.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/01/msg00650.html
--
Mathieu
Reply to: