Good question. I guess I got stuck in the upstream way of 'compatibility'. That's the best solution. I'll prepare the packages in experimental and we'll see.
Ondřej Surý On 16. 5. 2013, at 12:03, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:25:32 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: >>> Hi Ondřej, >>> >>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:12:02PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >>>> JSON-C upstream has renamed the library from libjson.so to >>>> libjson-c.so, headers are now in /usr/include/json-c and pkg-config is >>>> called json-c. >>> >>>> There's a compatibility layer (symlinks and libjson.so.0), but since >>>> the library has so few r-deps, I feel that we might not need it to >>>> make things more simple in the future. The upstream is planning to >>>> drop the compatibility layer in next release anyway, so we would have >>>> to do the transition in some other point in time. >>> >>> Not necessarily. If the ABI has not changed, there is no reason that we >>> should not keep the compatibility layer in place in Debian *indefinitely*. >>> >>> For another example of this, see libcurl3-gnutls. >> >> There are some new symbols in libjson-c library and _no_ symbols in libjson > Why isn't libjson.so.0 a symlink to libjson-c.so.2 then? > > Cheers, > Julien -- 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/8716426e-fbf1-4890-86f7-ddc538576...@sury.org
