hey julien, On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:36:32PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > So, anyway, my first question is how should i handle the bump with > > libcompizconfig, which has a dependency on the abi versions? I see that > I don't think it's necessary. You can either ask the release/buildd > people to schedule binNMUs afterwards, or (probably better) ask for > dep-waits right after the libcompizconfig upload, so the buildds don't > pick that one up until after the new compiz is available. okay, i think dep-waits sounds like the way to go, i'll ask around how that works. > > My second question is, assuming that we do the third ABI break with the > > local unapplied patch, should we modify the ABI version string to make > > the point that it's a different ABI from the upstream one? I don't > > think ubuntu is doing this though they're applying the patch... but i'm > > not sure if it's intentional or just an oversight. > > > I don't think this matters a lot, unless it's used consistently by > upstream and they have debs that people are expected to be able to > install on debian and use this? i don't think there are any proprietary/binary add-ons that we'd be breaking, no. my only concern was that we'd be exporting an ABI that claimed to be the same but actually incompatible. but since ubuntu is already doing this i guess it can't be so bad, and either way we'd be incompatible with one of them. thanks! sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature