Bug#951209: transition: libgusb
Hi
Simon McVittie píše v St 04. 03. 2020 v 11:43 +0000:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 15:24:42 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > libgusb is carrying in debian a patch[0] to revert/fix an after the
> > fact
> > change that was done upstream in the versioning of the symbols.
> >
> > I don't think we should/can carry this patch forever and due to the
> > fact
> > that the number of reverse-dependencies is quite limited, I was
> > planning
> > to simply drop it, but that would require to binNMU them to be
> > certain they are using the correct version of the symbol.
>
> Is the maintainer of libgusb aware of this transition plan?
Yes, I approved the upload. Actually, the package is now looking for
new maintainer see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953092
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 at 20:19:12 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > IMO we should keep compatibility with the old version until the
> > next
> > upstream SONAME bump. That might mean keeping this patch, or
> > something
> > different, if we can add properly versioned aliases for the
> > affected
> > symbols?
>
> I've proposed
> https://github.com/hughsie/libgusb/pull/33
> upstream and
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libgusb/-/merge_requests/2
> in Debian.
>
> I would recommend waiting to see what upstream say about #33 before
> applying anything in Debian.
Makes sense to attempt to get in sync in upstream here.
Michal
Reply to: