Re: micro libsidplayfp transition
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> wrote:
> On 2014-09-20 10:39, László Böszörményi wrote:
>> Next time should I just leave libsidplay on the system as an empty
>> package without informing users (without the transition) it has a new
>> library package?
>
> No, libsidplayfp needs to be dropped entirely. libdisplayfp-dev should (as
> it does) depend on libsidplayfp3. Please do that and re-upload as soon as
> possible.
Done and currently building on all architectures (already built on some).
> In a SONAME change you absolutely do not want users of the old SONAME
> package (libdisplayfp) building against the new SONAME (libdisplayfp3).
> That's why you have a -dev package in the first place. See libinput for an
> example of how it's done.
Dropped the conflicts/replaces as well.
> (libsidplayfp3 also suggests sidplay2fp, which doesn't exist...)
Updated.
Thanks,
Laszlo/GCS
Reply to: