[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#989597: release.debian.org: upgrade issue: non-coinstallability of libgdal20 and libgdal28



On 2021-06-13 11:30:47 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 6/13/21 11:12 AM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > On 2021-06-13 10:58:19 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2021 06.45, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> >>> On 6/12/21 10:23 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> >>>> I have unblocked gdal.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, libgdal (3.2.2-1) will need to be unblocked as well, it goes
> >>
> >> libgdal-grass ?
> >>
> >>> hand in hand with gdal (3.2.2+dfsg-1). libgdal needs the same upstream
> >>> version of gdal to build successfully.
> >>>
> >>>> Please go ahead with an upload adding a gdal3-data binary package.
> >>>
> >>> That's much more invasive as suggested in #986975 as it will need to
> >>> pass NEW in addition to an unblock.
> >>
> >> And it does not really help, since it just uncovers that there are more
> >> dependencies on not co-installable libraries: libogdi3.2/libogdi4.1 due to
> >> plugins in unversioned paths. Theoretically fixable as well by moving the
> >> plugins to a versioned path. Not sure what would show up next.
> > 
> > libogdi4.1 also needs an RC bug filed. It fails to meet a MUST
> > requirement from 8.2 of the policy. Sorry, but I'm not interessted in
> > papering over issuse that those packages introduce themselves by
> > breaking co-installability and violating policy.
> 
> The ogdi build system is quite shit (it doesn't support DESTDIR for
> example), changing the plugin pth is probably not a good idea. Moving
> them to a separate package seems like the only right thing to do based
> on the policy wording. But the package will have to pass NEW again,
> which is also quite shit at this stage of the release.

Well, that does not speak for the quality of ogdi-dfsg. If the build
system is already that bad, is the C code of the same quality? In any
case, a bug in an upstream build system does not excempt the package
from following the policy for shared libraries.

Cheers

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

-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: