On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Alexander Kurtz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 13:00 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > I think we won't touch the soname, since we usually try to not
> > deviate from what upstream uses but only change the package
> > name and add conflicts agai
Hi,
On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 13:00 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> I think we won't touch the soname, since we usually try to not
> deviate from what upstream uses but only change the package
> name and add conflicts against old package name...
> (This solves packaged software upgrades, but leaves
Hello Alexander Kurtz.
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:52:18PM +0200, Alexander Kurtz wrote:
[...]
> > Since we support partial upgrades, the broken ABI is still a bug
> > and needs a transition.
>
> Agreed, but from what I can tell, a SONAME bump (along with the
> corresponding transition) is all tha
Hi,
On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 12:16 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Yes, everything built after/against the new libical will pick up
> the new ABI and work (only) with the new version.
> In debian we try to support partial upgrades though (eg. mixtures
> of stable and testing), so this is still con
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:01:31PM +0200, Alexander Kurtz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> evolution-data-server 3.16.5-1 (which was uploaded *after* libical
> 1.0.1-0.1 [0] [1] and therefore already built with the newer version)
> migrated to testing yesterday [2], followed by evolution itself today.
>
> Upgrad
Hi,
evolution-data-server 3.16.5-1 (which was uploaded *after* libical
1.0.1-0.1 [0] [1] and therefore already built with the newer version)
migrated to testing yesterday [2], followed by evolution itself today.
Upgrading evolution and evolution-data-server therefore makes the
calendar functional
Control: block -1 by 797074
Hello Alexander Kurtz.
Thanks for your bug report.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:33:04PM +0200, Alexander Kurtz wrote:
> Package: libical-dev
> Version: 1.0.1-0.1
> Severity: serious
>
> Hi,
>
> it seems that the latest upload of libical (1.0.1-0.1) has broken its
> AB
Package: libical-dev
Version: 1.0.1-0.1
Severity: serious
Hi,
it seems that the latest upload of libical (1.0.1-0.1) has broken its
ABI yet again. Please see the attached diff (generated using
snapshots.debian.org [0]) for a comparison of the contents of
/usr/include/ between version 1.0-1.3 and
8 matches
Mail list logo
