Bug#802222: transition: gdal
On 22/10/15 01:48, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> 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.
binNMUs scheduled.
Cheers,
Emilio
Reply to: