On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 06:15:04PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:12:45 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:08:13AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > > > So I haven't actually *checked*, but from what I understood of this > > > > thread the ABI changes were compatible, which means there is and was no > > > > reason to bump the SONAME, only the version in the shlibs packaging > > > > metadata, for the added symbols in 2.4.2. This is not an upstream > > > > problem, it's a bug in the package, there is nothing for upstream to do > > > > here AFAIK. > > > > > > That clears is up. I'll do the needful. Thanks. > > > > So, currently, the shlibs file reads: > > > > libarmadillo 2 libarmadillo2 > > > > Now, should I use a new package name, like libarmadillo2a, or so, > > which conflicts with libarmadillo2? I am unclear… > > > No. Use something like: > libarmadillo 2 libarmadillo2 (>= 2.4.2)
Thanks Julien. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
