I'm contacting each of you because you're listed as maintaining a package in stable, unstable, or testing that depends on libguile, and the latest upload of libguile will probably break your packages. The problem is that the original libguile6 contained
libqthreads.so.0* libguilereadline.so.0* i.e. the upstream maintainers didn't version these libs, and so when they released guile1.4, libguile9 still provided libqthreads.so.0* libguilereadline.so.0* This was about the time I inherited the guile packages, and while not versioning these libs was technically, "bad", it wasn't fatal because the libguile6 and libguile9 versions were compatible with each other, So to deal with this and make dpkg happy, I added a "Replaces: libguile6" to libguile9 which mostly worked. Meanwhile, I worked on the guile source and talked to the upstream maintainers and we decided that these two helper libs would just be versioned the same as libguile. So the latest release of libguile9 provides libqthreads.so.9* libguilereadline.9* Of course installing this package left the libqthreads.so.0* symlinks from libguile6 dangling. To fix that, I added a "Conflicts: libguile6" to libguile9. This also helped with my intention to remove guile1.3 from Debian and have everything migrate to 1.4. However, there's now a problem. If you upgrade the current libguile9, and you had already installed the libguile9 that just "Replaced" libguile6, all of the packages that are linked against libguile6 or libguile9 will break. This is because they were linked against libqthreads.so.0* and friends and those files' libguile6 versions were replaced by libguile9, and then libguile9 quit including them in favor of the new *so.9* versions. This needs to be fixed. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but my current question is whether or not just having you all build/upload new versions of your packages would solve the problem. I *think* what we need is new versions of your packages that "Depend: libguile9 (>= 1:1.4-7), which is exactly what the current libguile9 shilbs file specifies. Does this seem reasonable, and likely to fix the problem? Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks. -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
