On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:35:19AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 07:13:21PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> Would you still accept an ABI change of apt to support description > >> translations into etch? > > I gather that "ABI change" means an soname change? In that case, no, sorry, > > I think it's too late in the release cycle to be changing this for apt. > I would like to ask you to review again your position. This code is > around since 3 years ago and in use on Ubuntu too. Are too few > packages that will need recompile. And yet the request comes as we should be preparing to feature-freeze apt *completely* for etch, not thinking about changes that require a recompile of all reverse-deps. BTW, I count 18 binary packages that would need a rebuild for this. This is a decent-sized library transition in its own right. > There's no API changes from APT side so just binary NMUs are enough > AFAIK. So what is this ABI change that doesn't involve API changes? -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
