On 22/10/15 01:48, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > 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.
binNMUs scheduled. Cheers, Emilio
