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

Bug#1013178: marked as done (transition: ceres-solver)

Your message dated Wed, 6 Jul 2022 20:41:07 +0200
with message-id <YsXXQ0cJk+ASSGrF@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1013178: transition: ceres-solver
has caused the Debian Bug report #1013178,
regarding transition: ceres-solver
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1013178: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013178
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: francois@mzf.fr

Dear release team,

I and Pierre Gruet (pgt@d.o) would like to transition ceres-solver to the new
SOVERSION (3).

The upstream changed the SOVERSION of the package without changing the major
version number (2.1.0). That's why we missed this ABI change, and Pierre
reverted the upload by uploading a new package with the +really suffix
(2.1.0+really2.0.0).
Upstream does not follow semantic versioning and confirmed that this behavior
is intentional [1].
So, a transition process is needed for the Debian package to handle this
SOVERSION update.

All reverse dependencies are building fine at least on amd64 [2].

Best Regards,
François

[1] https://github.com/ceres-solver/ceres-solver/issues/824
[2]
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=colmap,openturns,sight&compact=compact


Ben file:

title = "ceres-solver";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libceres2" | .depends ~ "libceres3";
is_good = .depends ~ "libceres3";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libceres2";

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2022-06-21 22:53:54 +0200, Pierre Gruet wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:49:32 +0200 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > All reverse dependencies are building fine at least on amd64 [2].
> >
> > That link doesn't tell me if the rdeps build against the new SONAME. Have
> you
> > tested that? If so, go ahead.
> 
> Thanks for looking at this transition bug. Yes, I can confirm I successfully
> built the rdeps against the new SONAME a few days ago.
> 
> So François will go ahead within the upcoming days.

This transition is done.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: