On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:42:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:35:19AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 07:13:21PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > >> Would you still accept an ABI change of apt to support description > > >> translations into etch? > > > I gather that "ABI change" means an soname change? In that case, no, > > > sorry, > > > I think it's too late in the release cycle to be changing this for apt. > > > I would like to ask you to review again your position. This code is > > around since 3 years ago and in use on Ubuntu too. Are too few > > packages that will need recompile. > > And yet the request comes as we should be preparing to feature-freeze apt > *completely* for etch, not thinking about changes that require a recompile > of all reverse-deps.
Right. I'm to blame here that I was overly cautious with putting new code into libapt in unstable. There were no translations available on ftp.debian.org until end of July (when aj did a one-time import) and without those the code was not really testable for real-world use. When the translations were importet and I asked for testing on debian-devel I got little feedback on the actual code in experimental. That's why I considered it so late for uploading to unstable. I didn't wanted to upload it without real-world testing because of the risk of having to break the ABI yet again to fix mistakes in the code. > BTW, I count 18 binary packages that would need a rebuild for this. This is > a decent-sized library transition in its own right. We may have to recompile the rdepends of libapt anyway because of http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390189 (recent g++ upload 4.1.1ds1-14 has a g++ regression) Upstream gcc bugreport: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29289 Matthias is still waiting for a comment from upstream on this. It maybe enough to recompile apt with the current g++, but it maybe that the only save option is to change the soname and recompile a rdepends. [..] > > There's no API changes from APT side so just binary NMUs are enough > > AFAIK. > > So what is this ABI change that doesn't involve API changes? There is a API change involved. But it is backwards compatible so a recompile will be good enough. To make use of the translated descriptions the applications needs to be changed though. Patches are available for aptitude, python-apt, synaptic, libapt-front (0.3). I hope this helps and I'm sorry for the bad timing with this request :/ Cheers, Michael -- Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
