On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:34:10PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > Hello Release Team, > X.Org is planning on making a release of 6.9 and 7.0 in about a week. > I've been preparing packages for 6.9, the monolithic release, based off the > current Xorg packages. They've been sitting in experimental and they've > been fairly well tested judging by the bug reports we've gotten so far. The > packages that went in to experimental today are for RC3, which represent an > essentially code-complete version of what will be the final release. The > remainder should be documentation updates and modular build system updates. > As such, the current packages should represent what will be the final 6.9 > release.
> I realize that there's a lot of transitions going on right now, but I'd > like permission to upload 6.9 final to unstable upon release. Here are the > consequences of doing this that I'm currently aware of: > 1) Render and Xrender both need updates, with an soversion bump. These > packages are basically ready, and have been in experimental for some > time, and with some small amount of polish they'll be ready to go. - render doesn't need an soversion bump, because it doesn't build a shared library (at least in Debian). - per your comments on IRC, upstream hasn't bumped sonames on xrender yet. Are you sure that xrender actually needs an soname change, rather than just a shlibs change? This libs has 328 reverse-dependencies in unstable; it's likely that a number of these are spurious, but it would still make for an inconvenient transition. Does the version currently in experimental match the code you'll be uploading? If not, where can I find the source to determine whether we're looking at a transition in the near future? > 2) The only lib to get an soversion change in xorg-x11 itself is libICE, > which has a minor soversion bump to allow it to be built modularly. Correction: as we discussed on IRC, this is a shlibs bump, not an soversion change. An soversion change in libICE would really, *really* suck... > 3) xlibs-dev goes away. I already wrote about this to -devel-announce, > and many packages have updated their build dependencies, including most > recently gtk. This will almost definitely be the most drastic of the > changes with this update, but it will also serve to pave the way for the > modular packages, which is currently my main focus of attention. What time frame are we looking at for the upload? I think we should be aggressively patching/NMUing for the xlibs-dev transition in advance of the actual removal of xlibs-dev; this weekend's BSP would be a great time to start... > The majority of the packaging is the same as what's currently in unstable. > The majority of the builds will choke on the MANIFEST again, but now that I > know what I'm doing with respect to that system (which I didn't during the > original xorg uploads) I can get that fixed for the second revision of the > packages, provided the toolchains are working. > The benefit to allowing the update to go through will be to allow newer > driver revisions, numerous bugfixes, and it will also pave the way for the > modular packages, which I am attempting to finish in time for etch. > So if it's Ok to let this go through next week that'd be great news, and if > not I'd like to hear what I'll be waiting on so I can track how things > progress. Thanks! I don't see anything that should block letting this in next week, at least if libxrender turns out to be a shlibs change and not an soname change. Let's let the rest of the release team comment as well, though. -- 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/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
