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