On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > 0.5.4-2 is in experimental (i386) and can be used as base for > > transition.
> Well, we can use them as a base for testing. However, it seems as if > starting the transition would be a bit premature. I have seen a couple > of questions that are not yet answered: > - Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or > is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Yes, this is a very controversial recommendation in the library packaging guide. The recommendation there is to change the -dev package name for *any* API changes, no matter how small a subset of reverse-dependencies may be affected. If there are 9 packages build-depending on poppler, 8 of them can be binNMUed and one of them requires source changes to work with the new version, it's not an effective use of developer resources to impose a -dev package name change that will force maintainers of all 9 packages to make sourceful uploads. > - In any case, shouldn't we carefully check all affected packages, > whether they FTBFS and whether they still work? This would IMO > require a phase where all of them are in experimental, except poppler > itself in case it gets a new dev package name. Yes, given the current release schedule, this new libpoppler transition will only be considered for etch if someone does rebuild and test all the reverse-dependencies, providing any necessary patches and documenting these to the release team. This doesn't require uploading all of the packages to experimental; anyone wishing to work on this transition can do so in the environment of their choice and report the results to debian-release and the BTS. Thanks, -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
