Bug#729289: whatever you want to call this: openscenegraph
2014-01-31 Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>:
> On 01/31/2014 07:28 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On the topic of 99->100, do you know if that will happen any time soon?
>> I am wondering whether we should go for finishing the 80->99 and do a
>> separate 99->100 or wait and jump directly from 80->100. If 100 is
>> coming soon, it is probably easiest to do 80->100 (will save us a couple
>> of rebuilds and we waiting for other things right now anyway).
>> On the other hand, I would hate for this transition to drag on waiting
>> for a new version that isn't happening while blocking other packages
>> from reaching testing.
>
> IIUC release 3.2.0 (as opposed to the rc) already brings SOVERSION 100.
> So we could release that and transition to 100 right away.
What Markus says is right.
What happened was that they did some important/nasty code changes just
before the the ~rc1, which we/I didn't relalise that it would be bad
(because upstream didn't expect any major problems). But adapting
other packages to it was not as easy/smooth as upstream expected.
Then they changed 99->100 between version 3.2.0~rc1 (current package
in Debian) and the final 3.2.0, so updating Debian would cause again a
round of rebuilds and maybe more source changes; and while pondering
whether to upgrade the package in Debian to the final upstream
version, they released 3.2.1~rc1 very shortly afterwards, planning to
release 3.2.1 within the same month. But that was in October, with
expectations every now and then that the release would be imminent,
but it didn't happen.
So we wanted to jump from 3.2.0~rc1 with SOVERSION 99 to 3.2.1 final
with SOVERSION <unknown>), to avoid the problems that Niels mentions
(despite what Markus said later, I thought that it can be higher than
100 before 3.2.1 final).
(There were other problems and the package was unbuildable for quite
some time, mostly my fault, but in truth related with other pressing
issues in my Debian duties and due to expecting to have the 3.2.1
upstream released and fixing everything together without more
disturbances to rdeps... which didn't happen, so we recently decided
to not wait any longer and fix 3.2.0~rc1).
> Also note that release 3.2.1 is due as well (for quite some time now,
> though. RC2 has been released, recently). However, according to their
> website [1], it should be binary compatible. (And their current 3.2
> branch still has a SOVERSION of 100.) So going straight through to 100
> seems reasonable to me.
Seeing that back in summer we took a similar decision based on similar
premises, which later were not fulfilled and led to the situation that
we have now, I am not sure that we should jump to 3.2.1, or even that
it's going to be released before March or April.
But I am open to any suggestion really, I just want to avoid more
problems for rdeps.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Reply to: