On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:31:19PM +0100, Maarten van Gompel wrote:
> Ok, so let me try to get this straight, I've never done this before:
don't they say "there is a first time for everyone"? ;)
[reflowing the points]
> * First, don't we have a problem now the transition freeze deadline has passed then?
> * Considering the only packages relying on libfolia, both in debian but also in
> general, are our own (ucto & frog), can't I just
> release the new libfolia package along with a new ucto and frog package that
> depend on it and forego on any transitions? (also considering the freeze).
In theory, yes.
In practise it's fine, the release team don't particularly care for very
small transitions like this, expecially if we take care of the rdeps
ourself (in this case, just uploading a new version of them).
You can also read from the transition freeze announcement email¹ how
they are banning "transitions that involve a large number of packages",
this surely isn't.
The tricky part of being so near to the freeze is that we're doomed if
ftpmasters take too much time to process the new package, but these days
the risk is pretty low.
> * We bump the soname version in libfolia upstream to 5.0.0 (was: 4.0.0) [I'm not sure
> what the versioning scheme/convention here is and don't really like that we're in such
> high numbers already compared to the actual software version]
I don't know your version scheme at all. Just be aware that the SONAME
of a library is not tangled with the version of the library (but people
expect ABI breakages only at major versions bumps, so…)
> * We release upstream and update the debian package
> * I bump the libfolia4 package to libfolia5 (and adapt libfolia5.install accordingly )
> and make libfolia-dev depend on libfolia5 instead of libfolia4
[ * upload ucto and from to have them build against the new library ]
yes.
> * I add a symbols file to libfolia with dpkg-gensymbols to make things easier for the future
this may be hard, and/or require some more studying, so I suggest you
defer this and not tangle with the stuff above (but please look into it)
> Does this sound right?
yes.
I want to link you this KDE doc about ABI stability in C++
https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B
maybe read it before releasing the new upstream, and take the occasion
to do all those changes that you want to do and you know that break the
ABI ;)
¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/11/msg00002.html
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature