Hi Adam, On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al. >> Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good >> time to >> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable > > Apparently the lack of an explicit "no" - having waited less than a week > - was taken as an implicit "yes". That's unfortunate, given that it > means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono > transition which we were very close to finishing.
I am truly sorry for any mess I am responsible for. > I'm hoping that we can resolve that without either having to delay mono > for a while longer or asking for a temporary reversion to gdcm 2.0. In > the meantime, if you wouldn't mind holding off on further uploads of > gdcm unless any serious issues arise that would be appreciated. I completely understand your point and I will not upload any new gdcm. In any case if you decide to revert to gdcm 2.0 watch very carefully for #657288 since it introduce a change in the API without any SONAME bump. I initially made the very first upload of gdcm 2.2 because of #657779, which I thought would help in the mono transition. I choose to upload directly 2.2.0 (vs a gdcm 2.0.19) since it clearly state the SONAME bump and I assume this would make the life of everybody else much easier. In particular I assumed having gdcm 2.2 would help the ITK4 transition, also debated on debian-release [1]. Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my request for gdcm transition. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/01/msg00650.html -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CA+7wUsw9+qAgRNottk39rpXi7rRB4xp3=fm9nxwh0k+hqlh...@mail.gmail.com
