Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:57:56PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > >> > If there are no incompatible API changes, wouldn't it be more >> > straightforward to continue building libicu34-dev from the icu >> > source and schedule binNMUs for the reverse-deps instead of renaming >> > it to libicu36-dev and requiring editing of build-deps? > >> Well, there are lots of new APIs. Anyway, I feel like it would be >> better to have the name be neutral (like libicu-dev) if we are going >> to drop the soname from the -dev package rather than having it be >> called libicu34-dev which seems somehow misleading. There are also >> some deprecated interfaces from 3.4, so it is still my inclination to >> go ahead and rename the -dev package and have the new -dev package >> conflict with the old one. > > Ok. Since the 3.4 interfaces are still present, even if deprecated, perhaps > a Provides: libicu34-dev might still be appropriate?
Yes, I agree. I'll put it in. Thanks. --Jay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
