On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire <j...@debian.org> wrote: > On 2014-09-20 10:39, László Böszörményi wrote: >> Next time should I just leave libsidplay on the system as an empty >> package without informing users (without the transition) it has a new >> library package? > > No, libsidplayfp needs to be dropped entirely. libdisplayfp-dev should (as > it does) depend on libsidplayfp3. Please do that and re-upload as soon as > possible. Done and currently building on all architectures (already built on some).
> In a SONAME change you absolutely do not want users of the old SONAME > package (libdisplayfp) building against the new SONAME (libdisplayfp3). > That's why you have a -dev package in the first place. See libinput for an > example of how it's done. Dropped the conflicts/replaces as well. > (libsidplayfp3 also suggests sidplay2fp, which doesn't exist...) Updated. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cakjshr1bmccsfrdhjyr6ts7kqigvzxs8hagy5hd829ncpmj...@mail.gmail.com
