On 6/11/21 8:49 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2021-06-09 12:41:29 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 6/9/21 12:11 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >>> On 08/06/2021 11.56, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >>>> gdal can rename gdal-data to gdal3-data, build with >>>> --datadir=/sur/share/gdal3 and drop the Breaks on libgdal20. >>>> Thus libgdal20 + gdal-data from buster should be co-installable with >>>> libgdal28 + gdal3-data from bullseye and survive the upgrade if needed. >>>> >>>> A patch doing this is attached, I'm now testing the upgrade paths >>>> (along the introduction of the libhdf5*-103 metapackages). >>> >>> If the gdal-data issue is solved, the next problem shows up: >>> >>> libgdal20 Depends: libogdi3.2 >>> libgdal28 Depends: libogdi4.1 >>> >>> but the two ogdi library packages are not co-installable (both ship >>> plugins in the same unversioned path). >>> >>> So even if we fix hdf5, libgdal20 is unlikely to be able to survive >>> upgrades from buster. (Sime something that was built against libgdal20 >>> in buster now likely depends on libgdal28 in bullseye) >>> But I'd still like to add a Breaks: libgdal20 to libgdal28 to make this >>> explicit, since transitive Breaks don't work well. >> >> I'm only willing to update gdal in unstable if the 3.2.2+dfsg-1 changes >> don't need to be reverted. Since that goes against the freeze policy, >> that's highly unlikely as the RMs seem unwilling to make exceptions. > > Is 3.2.2 a bugfix only release?
It is. As mentioned in its NEWS: https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/v3.2.2/gdal/NEWS > Are there any changes in 3.2.2 that go > beyond targetted fixes? I'd say no, see: https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/compare/v3.2.1...v3.2.2 > Is there a policy that gdal upstream follows for > picking patches for a bug fix release? Its not codified, but upstream is sane with the commits to their maintenance branches. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
