On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 23:21:32 +0100, sean finney wrote: > So, anyway, my first question is how should i handle the bump with > libcompizconfig, which has a dependency on the abi versions? I see that > compiz has been hacked to provide a compiz-core-abiversion-<foo> style > virtual package. namely, should i add an explicit depends on -dev > packages >= 0.8.4, or assume that someone will schedule binNMU's if > libcompizconfig happens to get taken first for building before the > new compiz. > I don't think it's necessary. You can either ask the release/buildd people to schedule binNMUs afterwards, or (probably better) ask for dep-waits right after the libcompizconfig upload, so the buildds don't pick that one up until after the new compiz is available.
> My second question is, assuming that we do the third ABI break with the > local unapplied patch, should we modify the ABI version string to make > the point that it's a different ABI from the upstream one? I don't > think ubuntu is doing this though they're applying the patch... but i'm > not sure if it's intentional or just an oversight. > I don't think this matters a lot, unless it's used consistently by upstream and they have debs that people are expected to be able to install on debian and use this? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
