On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:39:37PM +0100, Maarten van Gompel wrote: > > starting with frog: > > Ok, so you're saying I don't need to force a higher libfolia version despite > the new so version? Will bug > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=843053 still be fixed this > way? exactly, you don't need to force the new version. you only need to rebuild the package against the new soversion. > > for ucto: > > Ok, I reverted the changes, it's indeed a no-change upload then, no version > number change at all, is that valid? umh, no. I can't upload the same package/version, there need to be bump on the version of some kind. Just add a new changelog entry without doing anything else at all (that's also what binNMUs do https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu-binnmu) > > I'm also waiting for the auto-transitioner to notice the libfolia upload > > and create a transition tracker to have more assurance those are the > > only 2 rdeps. > > I'd be very surprised (and very pleasantly so) if a third party uses our > library AND packages his software for debian :) But I understand the precaution > yes. hehe. Indeed those two are the only two https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libfolia.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