Hi Gianfranco, [Disclaimer: I am not part of the release team] The release team keeps track of these kind of request by use of the bts. Please file a bug (with the content below) against the pseudo-package release.debian.org. Bonus if you use the template provided by the reportbug command line utility and a ben file template is attached. Paul On 07-01-14 10:57, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi debian release Managers! > > Together with Manuel (the sdlgfx uploader, who reads in cc), we decided to ask for a transition > > the package can be found here [1] and brings a really similar API, but the packages that build-deps from it will likely need a binNMU to build against the new ABI/API. > > > We are most sure that mostly of them (if not all of them) will just need a rebuild. > > Unfortunately the package will go through the new queue (we can avoid that, as explained below), because of the change from libsdl-gfx1.2-4 to libsdl-gfx1.2-5. > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sdlgfx.html > > > # reverse-depends -b src:sdlgfx > Reverse-Build-Depends-Indep > =========================== > * libalien-sdl-perl (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * taoframework (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > > Reverse-Build-Depends > ===================== > * angband (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * balder2d (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * ballerburg (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * blocks-of-the-undead (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * brainparty (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * clanlib (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * dd2 (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * enigma (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * freedink (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * freedroidrpg (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * freetennis (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * freewheeling (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * gambas3 (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * haskell-sdl-gfx (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * haskell-sdl-image (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * hyperrogue (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * infon (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * iulib (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * lincity-ng (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * luola (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * mana (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * manaplus (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * mousetrap (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * ocamlsdl (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * openssn (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * qonk (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * sitplus (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * tome (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * warmux (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > * widelands (for libsdl-gfx1.2-dev) > > > thanks for your time, > > have a nice new year, > > > Gianfranco > > [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-sdl/packages/sdlgfx.git > > > > Il Sabato 28 Dicembre 2013 13:49, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > 2013/12/22 Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>: >>>> Il Domenica 22 Dicembre 2013 0:19, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> ha scritto: >>> >>>>> 2013/12/21 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>: >>>>>> I can help of course, I'm trying to get more and more involved in >>>> debian (I'm a DM since some months now, but I started contributing more than >>>> one year ago in the debian alioth gits) >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll be glad to help, altough sometimes I still make mistakes (the >>>> .24 wasn't uploaded because the ABI/API changed and nobody bumped the >>>> soname... >>>>>> >>>>>> I pushed everything on alioth! >>>>> >>>>> OK, thanks, I will review it. >>>> >>>> So I reviewed it and pushed the changes, which is mostly to squash the >>>> changelog of .24 and .25 together and minor packaging changes which >>>> probably are not important (didn't remember to commit separately, >>>> sorry). >>>> >>> >>> Wonderful! That was in my plans, but I was too lazy to to it :) >> >> So is it OK to go for you, other than waiting for the transition? >> >> >>>> I think that the bump in SONAME will bring the following complications: >>>> >>>> - the binary .deb has a new name, thus has to go through the FTP >>>> master's NEW queue (and can take weeks/months) >>>> >>>> - all reverse-depends will have to be recompiled against the new >>>> version (probably binNMU is enough, but since there are ~30 or so I >>>> guess that some of them will fail to compile and complicate the >>>> transition) >>>> >>>> - I think that a transition should be opened with Release Managers, >>>> the number of packages is high enough >>>> >>>> I wonder if we can do something like the following to avoid at least >>>> the 1st step: >>>> >>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=549110 >>>> >>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=54;filename=sdlgfx-2.0.20-1.1-nmu.diff;att=1;bug=549110 >>> >>> For this part I don't know the best solution honestly... >>> I tried the possible to avoid the new queue stall, but maybe since this is an API/ABI change is good to change everything and to have a package name coherent with the new sdl API/ABI. >>> >>> for the transition yes, I think we should open a transition and ask for binNMU, I hope everything will go smoothless, since the changes weren't so deep, at least in the API (some internal function were removed, and some bug fixed, nothing more if I remember correctly) >> >> OK, so please speak with Release Managers and keep this list in copy >> so we can chime in if necessary, and do the actual uploads. >> >> >>> (I'll look for sdl2 soon I hope) >> >> OK, let me know when it's ready to review. This is less problematic >> and we can upload once it's ready, since we don't have to care about >> API/ABI changes. >> >> Just try to keep things as close as possible to the other libsdl2* >> packages so everybody can treat all the modules as having the same >> structure and config, and we can apply changes to packaging widely, >> it's easier to understand and less error-prone. If there are things >> that you don't like and can be improved in other modules they should >> be fixed in them as well, and not only improve the gfx module. >> >> >> >> Cheers. >> -- >> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> >> >> > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature