Re: libkpathsea transition
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
> On 29.08.05 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
>> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>> > Further transitions
>> > ===================
>> > Please don't do.
>> >
>> > Any further transition has the potential to make it even harder to bring
>> > packages to testing, as this makes the barrier for packages to go to
>> > testing even higher.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to upload tetex-bin_3.0 with the binary
>> packages libkpathsea4(-dev), if at the same time we make sure that
>> libkpathsea3 is still available? We could drop the "Provides:
>> libkpathsea-dev" from libkpathsea4-dev, so that no packages
>> accidently gets compiled against the new library.
>>
> Hmm, wasn't it the case, that the old libkpathsea3 implements the new
> TDS, while libkpathsea4 understands the new one? I.e. a program
> linked with libkpathsea3 won't work with tetex 3.0? Or am I totally
> broken?
Actually the TDS changes are mainly in texmf.cnf - there might be some
new variables that only the new kpathsea understands.
I think that a program linked against libkpathsea3 (and using this
version, of course) would still find most files on a putative unstable
system with teTeX-3.0. If it doesn't, that would be inconvenient for
the unstable user (as are many things on unstable), *but* the good thing
is that it wouldn't affect the testing transition. And as soon as the
package linked against libkpathsea3 is in testing, it can forget about
teTeX-3.0 and TDS1.1 for a while.
However, if we just upload teTeX-3.0 into unstable, libkpathsea3 would
vanish, and all packages that get recompiled after that are linked
against libkpathsea4. Then they could not enter testing before
tetex-bin and libkpathsea4 enters testing. And this would imply a
library transition, which was forbidden by the release managers (for
valid reasons, I think).
Is that clearer?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: