Hi Manuel, On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 07:04:00PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Hi Muammar, > > 2013/4/28 Muammar El Khatib <muam...@debian.org>: > > Package: cegui-mk2 > > Followup-For: Bug #704781 > > > > Dear Manuel, > > > > I have taken a look at CEGUI regarding your report. The package depends on > > libogre-dev which points out to 1.7.4+dfsg1. I have no problems in uploading > > today itself a new version of CEGUI making it depends explicitly on > > libogre-1.8-dev. But normally, libogre-dev should point to the latest > > version > > of libogre at some time. Do you want me to upload it now? > > As far as I know, OGRE developers haven't provided backward compatibility in > most (or all) of previous versions, so all applications (or other libs) > depending on OGRE have to change to support new versions. From a packager > point of view, depending on "-dev" and expecting the applications to be > compiled without problems with newer versions of OGRE is not something that > works in general, or at least it did not work until now. >
Yes, that's right. > From packages depending on OGRE, I think that the correct thing to do > is to support "libogre-1.8-dev | libogre-1.9-dev", when the versions > are known to support these versions explicitly. > > There are even further problems with versions, for example having all > applications using OGRE to use at the same time specific versions of > Boost (because OGRE exposes thread-locking mechanisms from Boost that > also change between versions): > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674633 > > So I was thinking that providing libogre-dev doesn't make much sense, > unless/until upstreams care about that in future versions. I know > that it's not ideal, but I don't think that we can help that from the > Debian packaging side. Comments/opinion? When reading to Paul's message, I think that it's true this seems to be an exception. Therefore, I agree with you that it doesn't make much sense to provide a libogre-dev package at all (and more if OGRE developers don't provide backward compatibility). When I studied Debian Library Packaging guide, i got this idea that an un-versioned -dev package gave lots of benefits as you said in your reply to him, and that its purpose was to provide the latest/stablest version available. In any case, this situation could be discussed (if needed) with the rest of DD to see what they think about it. > > To reply to your question: "Do you want me to upload it now?"; I saw a > few days ago that they already produced Release Candidates for 1.9, so > maybe it's available in the next few weeks. I don't think that 1.8 > will be in Jessie when released. If you want to minimise the number > of uploads and if Cegui supports 1.9, you might as well wait a few > weeks to upload this. > As Wheezy is going to be launched next month, I'm more inclined to wait until 1.9. Cheers, -- Muammar El Khatib. Linux user: 403107. Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1 http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.org ,''`. : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
