Re: nlohmann-json3-dev need to be reverted to trixie version

[Drew Parsons <dparsons@emerall.com>]

On 2025-09-20 17:19, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 02:42:05PM +0200, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > On 2025-09-20 13:18, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 07:52:16AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How do we move forward? Ok also to create a nlohmann-json3-3.12-dev or
> > > > whatever, but I guess this one (3.11) should also go away as soon as
> > > > possible, and let people migrate to the new one.
> > >
> > > Call it nlohmann-json3.12.0-dev, no need to duplicate the '3'.
> > > Unfortunately it will need to Conflicts/Replaces (but not Provides)
> > > nlohmann-json3-dev.
> >
> > How unstable is this ABI issue?  Is the minor version really needed in 
> > the
> > package name?
> > Would nlohmann-json3.12-dev not be sufficient?
>
> [[If you are interested, please read the discussion from the start, no 
> need to
> restart from scratch]]
>
> The issue is precisely that upstream hardcode the full version string 
> in the ABI
> (in typename).

I see, including the minor version (the patch version I mean).
A difficult challenge indeed.
Drew