On 22-10-15 00:26, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 21/10/15 21:30, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 21-10-15 21:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 18/10/15 16:38, Bas Couwenberg wrote: >>>> Despite only marking the packages relying on C++ symbols as bad, I think >>>> all affected reverse dependencies should be binNMUed as part of this >>>> transition. >>> >>> Why is that? >> >> Mostly to be better safe than sorry. >> >>> If the C ABI is stable, then there's no need to binNMU the >>> rdeps. If it isn't, then you should change the package name. >>> >>> If we binNMU them now, the binNMUs will migrate to testing before the new >>> gdal, which wouldn't be good if there were ABI changes... >> >> That's a good point. > > Yeah, so let's not do that. Hopefully you've tested the new gdal with some C > apps that didn't break, that'd be good enough. If something turns out to break > in the end, then you'll have to rename the package... but let's hope that's > not > necessary.
Let's hope that indeed. > You can start this. Thanks. I've just uploaded gdal (1.11.3+dfsg-1) to unstable. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
