Hi, On 04/04/17 11:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 10:45, James Cowgill wrote: > | Package: libgsl2 > | Version: 2.3+dfsg-1 > | Severity: normal > | > | Hi, > | > | As a followup from the thread on debian-backports[1], please can you > | move libgslcblas.so from libgsl2 into a separate package. This will > | allow clean upgrades without conflicts when the SONAME of gsl is changed > | and would have avoided the current backports uninstallability situation. > | See policy 8.1 for more info about this. > | > | This may result in a transition if there are any packages in the archive > | which use libgslcblas.so, because they will need their dependencies > | updating. > > I have maintained GSL for 18 years. The soname changed once. Besides, > upstream is now largely stable, releases happen way fewer than before. > > To be this is an issue in search of a problem, as opposed to an actual > problem. I don't really agree with the assessment and would rather not do > this.
I will admit that since this any fix is unlikely to be allowed into stretch, the major damage has already been done. There are some lesser upsides going forward though: - the package would become more policy compliant - no need to ship libgslcblas.so to users who never use it - avoid accidentally breaking the package again in the unlikely event the SONAME is bumped again The downside of a package transition may never materialize since I cannot find any packages which actually link to libgslcblas.so (in a very quick search). I guess there might be an "external packages" downside if non-Debian packages use libgslcblas.so. So I do think there are good reasons to do this for buster. Downgrade the bug to wishlist if you want. James
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
