Bug#729289: transition: openscenegraph
2014-02-03 Rebecca N. Palmer <r.palmer@bham.ac.uk>:
>>
>> Also, for the future, question to Niels: we know that multiple
>> versions of the same library are discouraged, but maybe it would be
>> useful in this case to accomodate to the pace of different rdeps?
>
> That wouldn't be as useful as it might look: openwalnut have long
> recommended using their own repository (in a VM if necessary) instead of
> their Debian-main packages
> (http://www.openwalnut.org/projects/openwalnut/wiki/Getting_OpenWalnut), and
> all the other problems that were actually due to openscenegraph changes (as
> opposed to other issues that would be RC bugs whether or not this transition
> existed) were fixed (at least upstream) months ago.
(This starts to be offtopic, so perhaps would be better to stop
discussing it in the bug report).
I don't understand why this would not be useful with my proposal.
Having several versions is supposed to be discouraged, that's why we
never tried to implement this, but at least I would be in favour of
it. That means that we could have:
- 3.3 or 3.4 (when available) for developers using the library
directly, and stabilise that version in Debian before we ask rdeps to
start to migrate,
- 3.2.* for (most) debian rdeps,
- and perhaps an older version 3.0.* while other rdepends (more
conservative, or less actively maintained) don't migrate.
So, if anything, it would help to not make rdeps to move so fast and
allow them to stabilise, with larger time-frames to update their
build-depends, while still providing the latest and greatest to
developers and weeding out some problems before rdeps suffer them.
This can only help OpenWalnut to be more stable in Debian, so I don't
understand why you say that it would not be useful. If it's simply
because "nobody uses OpenWalnut", well, in this case it could as well
be removed from Debian. Its popcon is very low indeed (not only now,
but even more so in the years before OSG was broken). But still, I
don't think that low popcon is good reason to remove packages,
specially when they are intended to be useful only for a relatively
small population.
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=openwalnut
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Reply to: