On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:20:14PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > That function is trivial. I'm wondering if we couldn't reintroduce in a patch > and avoid the package rename. Then 0.9.32 can go to unstable/testing right > away. > > The next time upstream breaks the ABI (probably during jessie+1) we can remove > the patch and thus the symbol. > > The reason why I'm thinking about avoiding the transition is that it won't be > "smooth", i.e. harfbuzz and all the rdeps need to transition *together*. So > one > FTBFS problem on any architecture will block the whole transition. And the > affected packages include libreoffice, qtbase-opensource-src, > chromium-browser, > webkitgtk... which are huge. And e.g. chromium-browser has a FTBFS bug, which > would block the transition. There may be others. > > If the transition was "smooth" (because there weren't conflicts on the old > package) it would be ok. But this late on the cycle, with a few big transition > coming up (one of them being librevenge/libreoffice) I wonder if we shouldn't > revert the ABI break instead. > > Thoughts? ---end quoted text---
According to upstream changelog:
Rename HB_VERSION_CHECK and hb_version_check to "atleast"
HB_VERSION_CHECK's comparison was originally written wrongly
by mistake. When API tests were written, they were also written
wrongly to pass given the wrong implementation... Sigh.
Given the purpose of this API, there's no point in fixing it
without renaming it. As such, rename.
API changes:
HB_VERSION_CHECK -> HB_VERSION_ATLEAST
hb_version_check -> hb_version_atleast
My question, should I add HB_VERSION_CHECK as it was before 0.9.30 ?
Or should I add it as an alias for HB_VERSION_ATLEAST ?
--
أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy)
Digital design engineer
GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7
GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
