Hi Simon McVittie píše v St 04. 03. 2020 v 11:43 +0000: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 15:24:42 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > > libgusb is carrying in debian a patch[0] to revert/fix an after the > > fact > > change that was done upstream in the versioning of the symbols. > > > > I don't think we should/can carry this patch forever and due to the > > fact > > that the number of reverse-dependencies is quite limited, I was > > planning > > to simply drop it, but that would require to binNMU them to be > > certain they are using the correct version of the symbol. > > Is the maintainer of libgusb aware of this transition plan?
Yes, I approved the upload. Actually, the package is now looking for new maintainer see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953092 > On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 at 20:19:12 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > IMO we should keep compatibility with the old version until the > > next > > upstream SONAME bump. That might mean keeping this patch, or > > something > > different, if we can add properly versioned aliases for the > > affected > > symbols? > > I've proposed > https://github.com/hughsie/libgusb/pull/33 > upstream and > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libgusb/-/merge_requests/2 > in Debian. > > I would recommend waiting to see what upstream say about #33 before > applying anything in Debian. Makes sense to attempt to get in sync in upstream here. Michal
