On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 08:53:54PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 03:08:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >Why does librpm4 have shlibs that require rebuilds of reverse dependencies > >when there is no change in the library sonames?
> Hello Steve, > Joey Hess put the following comments in debian/rules long time ago > when he was the rpm maintainer. > # Remember to update after upstream releases. The whole soname is > # in the library names, so this mess is called for. > dh_makeshlibs -V"librpm4 (>= 4.0.4), librpm4 (<< 4.0.5)" But the current soname of librpm is librpm-4.4.so, not librpm-4.4.x.so, so the correct shlibs would appear to at most be "librpm4 (>= 4.4), librpm (<< 4.5)"; and anyway, as described in Policy 8.1, the package name here should be librpm4.4 rather than librpm4. I would like to see this issue fixed first, rather than scheduling binNMUs for the reverse-deps now and then again when the library's name/shlibs have been fixed. > >(... and why is the package in unstable numbered with a Debian revision of > >-0?) > Why is that a problem? It's not the convention, so it leaves people uncertain whether the package is an NMU or a maintainer upload or something else... -- 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]
