Hi Debian Developers, A while ago sdlgfx [1] package changed the API/ABI, and for this reason we started a transition from .23 to .25 release
the new package has been uploaded on unstable (after two experimental releases), on [2014-04-07] Accepted 2.0.25-3 in unstable (medium) so after that time every package uploaded on debian has been built with the new soname. Another package (just an example) is this one, gambas3 [2] that uses sdlgfx as B-D that has been uploaded on unstable on [2014-04-11] Accepted 3.5.2-2 in unstable (low) So you might see that everything is correct, but (please correct me if I'm wrong) I see TWO bugs: -gambas3 reached testing prior to sdlgfx 2.0.25, so how can people installing it be sure the package won't segfault for the library change? -gambas3 has been uploaded on debian after TWO weeks in new queue, so the amd64 package has been built on Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:23:48 +1100 the situation now is: gambas3 for amd64 still uses the old sdlgfx for other archs uses the new API/ABI, it has reached testing for an unknown reason to me [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sdlgfx.html [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gambas3.html I know it might not be a bug, but I would like to ask, because I have many doubts about the correctness of this procedure. Why you still allow binary uploads? I mean I know that people might upload wrong versions, FTBFS and so on, but what about "allowing only binary uploads, then discard the binary and rebuild again?" many and many times I would like to see changelogs for arch-all packages, but I obviously can't. Cheers, (I hope to find somebody helping me, and I hope to be on the right mail list, and sorry Julien for ccing you, but I wan't to let you know in case of troubles in the transition process) thanks Gianfranco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1398240626.81350.yahoomail...@web171801.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
