On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:54:50AM +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote: > without checking the exported symbols, I synced 2.1.10-1 into Ubuntu. > Feeling slightly guilty, I felt responsible to work on getting the > situation 'fixed'. To solve this problem, (I read that it'll be a long > way to freetype 2.2), I'd like to come to an agreement here.
> With the information that Matt revealed We already knew that the ABI had been broken; I'm not sure why Matt's follow-up is a deciding factor here... > I think it'd make sense to rename the package to libfreetype6a > (or whatever) and treat this like a 'normal' transition, that other > libraries do as well. The issue is that it's very nasty to do this without coordinating with upstream regarding an soname change. The *other* issue is that this bit of brokenness has lingered long enough that freetype is now the main blocker for package updates in testing. Having to go through a package name change at this point will further block progress in testing (including, at this point, the revised C++ ABI transition). So given that the current upstream 2.1.10 version can't go into testing as libfreetype6, I favor figuring out how to restore this library to the proper libfreetype6 interface. This may be doable with 2.1.10 and minimal changes, or it might require epoching and reverting to 2.1.7/9 in the interest of sanity. From my POV then, the options are, in decreasing order of preference: - restore ABI compatibility with libfreetype6 to freetype 2.1.10, in cooperation with upstream - restore ABI compatibility with libfreetype6 to freetype 2.1.10, without upstream's cooperation :/ - downgrade to a compatible version of freetype using an epoch - talk upstream into reissuing freetype 2.1.10 as libfreetype7 instead of libfreetype6, and transition - (worst option) repackage freetype 2.1.10 as libfreetype6debian1 Will, your thoughts on this as maintainer (and liaison to upstream) are most welcome; this will all run much better if we get upstream on-board with whatever's decided... Loic Minier wrote: > I think you should reupload a fixed package exactly at the same time > you do the transition, to permit applications linked against the > previous package to continue working. Something like the libssl > situation: > - contact ftpmasters + release to warn them > - prepare a freetype2.1.9 source package providing the same binary > packages as in the past > - prepare a freetype source package with the transitionned package > names you described This procedure should be avoided except in cases where the library is important enough to keep around for binary compatibility with software external to Debian. I don't have reason to believe this is the case for libfreetype; do you? Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
