Re: libkpathsea3 -> libkpathsea4 transition?
On 02.02.06 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
Hi all,
> > Shouldn't we start to move the package depending on libkpathsea3 to
> > libkpathsea4?
>
> I don't know what -release would have to say, but as the packages
> are now (libkpathsea-dev from the libkpathsea3 sources, plus
> libkpathsea4-dev currently *not* providing libkpathsea-dev), I
> think we need not force any transition. Instead we can transition
> the packages smoothly. I suggest the following procedure:
>
Well, OK. We can file that as whishlist bug and raise it up to
critical as soon as we plan to drop kpathsea3.
> 0. wait until libkpathsea4 is in testing (should be only a couple of
> days)
>
Do we have to wait until this is the case? However it doesn't hurt
if we do.
> 3. When the number of packages still depending on libkpathsea3 is low
> enough, increase the severity and start NMUing. The problem
> here is that we can't just check whether the package builds, but
> instead need to verify that it also does work.
>
I still hope most maintainers will take away that job from us. As
Olaf suspected the ABI won't, I would not care about it. I'd just
check if the lib work at all (if the programs in the package find
any file in the texmf-tree) and I guess we're done then.
> The final goal should be to have no packages depending on
> libkpathsea3 in etch, and to drop it completely in etch+1.
>
Can't that be dropped for etch?
H.
--
Everybody is going somewhere!! It's probably a garage sale or a
disaster Movie!!
http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/
Reply to: