On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 12:22:46AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 12:23 +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 02:32:13PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:22:25 +0900, Horms wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > > > A sounds fine from my point of view, as it involves the least effort. > > > > Although as I discovered this morning, there seems to be a second ABI > > > > change relating to the same patch, so we should get that out ASAP. > > > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284356#msg68 > > > > > > Hm, you're referring to the addition of termios_sem (which was already > > > added to 2.6), or something else? > > > > Yes, that is the one. > > > > Joeyh doesn't seem to care which we do (he said it's the same amount of > effort for him both ways, he just asked that whatever we decide be > consistent for 2.4 and 2.6. So, I'm going to recommend reverting the > tty locking patch and bumping the SONAME. For 2.4, this makes sense > since the kernel w/ the broken ABI hasn't propogated to sarge yet. For > 2.6, this is a bit more painful, since the broken ABI is already in > sarge, but.. *shrug*.
Andres and I discussed this on IRC and as the SONAME=2 packages are produced by the same source package as the SONAME=1 packages once the SONAME=2 are accepted the SONAME=1 will go away. In a nutshell this means the update SONAME=1 then upload SONAME=2 approach doesn't help any more than just uploading SONAME=2. So we have more or less decided to do that for both 2.4 and 2.6 and we are going to work on making that happen. -- Horms
