[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#461583: ITP: libdc1394-22



On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:40:04PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 11:15:09PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 11:18:14PM +0200, Peter Antoniac wrote:
[...]
> > I also added Conflicts with 20, because some people might have installed
> > that one from experimental, and the -utils package has to Conflict with
> > the old -examples package.
> 
> I'm guessing that there is a minor misunderstanding here.  The conflicts
> are only for the -dev packages.  The library packages themself don't
> conflict.
> 
> But I have to wonder a few things:
> - Why do you need 2 source packages for libdc1394?  Do you think
>   migrating from the current "13" to "22" will take a long time?  Did
>   things change alot in the API?  We only seem to have 10 packages
>   in unstable that build depend on libdc1394 so I don't see why we
>   need 2 source packages for that.

Because they all depend on libdc1394-13, and the API has changed a lot
in the mean time. You cannot recompile even the simplest application
written for libdc1394-13 with libdc1394-22. I don't expect all those
packages depending on the old libdc1394 to have everything ported before
lenny is released.

Another point is that libdc1394-13's last release was in August 2007, so
you can still consider it maintained by upstream. There is no reason for
applications to move to the new libdc1394 unless they use new things not
found in the older library.

> - Why do you want to embed the current soname in things like the -dev
>   and -doc packages?  (It might be related to the first question.)

Exactly because I want other package maintainers to be able to choose
between 13 or 22, depending on what their upstream supports.

> - Is there really a need to have 2 "utils" binary packages?  They
>   even conflict with each other, and the "22" doesn't seem to make
>   any sense in this case.

Hm, I agree that the "22" in the utils package is unnecessary. I'll try
to remove it.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: