Bug#802222: transition: gdal

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl>]

On 22-10-15 00:26, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 21/10/15 21:30, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 21-10-15 21:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 18/10/15 16:38, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
>>>> Despite only marking the packages relying on C++ symbols as bad, I think
>>>> all affected reverse dependencies should be binNMUed as part of this
>>>> transition.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Mostly to be better safe than sorry.
>>
>>> If the C ABI is stable, then there's no need to binNMU the
>>> rdeps. If it isn't, then you should change the package name.
>>>
>>> If we binNMU them now, the binNMUs will migrate to testing before the new
>>> gdal, which wouldn't be good if there were ABI changes...
>>
>> That's a good point.
> 
> Yeah, so let's not do that. Hopefully you've tested the new gdal with some C
> apps that didn't break, that'd be good enough. If something turns out to break
> in the end, then you'll have to rename the package... but let's hope that's not
> necessary.

Let's hope that indeed.

> You can start this.

Thanks. I've just uploaded gdal (1.11.3+dfsg-1) to unstable.

Kind Regards,

Bas

-- 
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1