On Friday 06 December 2013 16:02:50 Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi folks, > > Best practice for the case where upstream has changed ABI without changing > SONAME is to keep the SONAME the same (for consistency with third-party > binaries), but to change the Debian package name. > > For past examples of this, see the C++ c2a transition; the libc5/libc6 'g' > transition; the ldbl transition; the odbcinst1debian2 package; etc. > > While Debian could get away with doing a spot rebuild and not change the > package name for the ABI change (since there are few revdeps and the library > hasn't made it into a stable release), Ubuntu cannot because Ubuntu has had > a stable release that made heavy use of qt5. As Ubuntu would like to stay > as close as possible to Debian for Qt packaging, I (and other Ubuntu > developers) would appreciate it if Debian did do the library package name > change (which is per se more correct, anyway). The cost to Debian is > fairly small for doing this, just a single round-trip through NEW, and it > simplifies the handling of the revdeps since you don't need to add any > versioned conflicts against each of them to ensure a consistent system. I see your point here. And I think the only lib we would really need to rename is libqt5core5 to libqt5core5a. The rest depends heavily on it, so this single change should simply work. Does that seems OK for you? -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.