On 06/27/2011 01:18 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: > On 27/06/11 08:55, أحمد المحمودي wrote: >> >> On the mention of transition, do you know why didn't swt-gtk 3.6 manage >> to get into testing, although all packages depending on it did migrate >> to 3.6 ? Note: currently you'll find a "serious" bug against swt-gtk, >> but that was just filed 9 days ago (swt-gtk & all dependencies were >> transitioned a month ago) >> > > Hi Ahmed, > > The transition didn't occur because of a "serious" bug filed against > Azureus. I just fixed that on Saturday and Tony uploaded it yesterday, > so it'll be a few days before migration could take place. I believe it > may require the release team to add a hint to encourage all the > dependencies to be updated at the same time. > > I'd certainly support removing at least the minor version from the > package names. Another option would be to keep the major version, so > have libswt-gtk-3-java etc, since if/when there's a version 4 I'd guess > the API will be more broken. > > Thanks, > Andy
I don't have a feel for how much the API might change between releases, but libswt-gtk-3-java seems reasonable. Shall we change it for this upload or go ahead and introduce 3.7 to the archive? Thank you, tony
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
