On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 04:27:41PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > BTW, without annoying all of you with a so looooooong history about > this issue, I'm going to introduce a new libgdal1h binary package (h means > hidden, better > suggestions are welcome :)), with a new SONAME libgdal.1h to manage a decent > migration > to the new flavor. This will sacrifice third-parties sw compatibility, but > well, who cares? It would be break anyway. >
Maybe a better choice in this specific case would be introducing a new binary package (libgdal1h) that Conflicts/Breaks against libgdal1 and provides the usual library with the usual name/soname. Of course, that will force a lot of bNMUs and an explicit unblocking set to complete the transition properly. Make sense? -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- 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/20130618151603.gh5...@blegrez.ba.issia.cnr.it
