Package: libgpiod2
Version: 1.2-3
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

The libgpiod2 package currently conflicts with libgpiod1.  As far as I 
can tell, this is unnecessary.  The two packages share no files and 
provide different SONAMEs, and seem to be co-installable.  I have tried 
installing both (with --force-conflicts) and my program linked against 
libgpiod.so.1 still works.

This conflict is a problem because it means that I can't install the new 
libgpiod-dev and recompile my program against it without first breaking 
the existing version.  This makes a smooth upgrade more difficult than 
it should be.

Debian Policy, in a footnote, has this to say about conflicts between 
versions of shared libraries:

"There are some exceptional situations in which co-installation of two 
versions of a shared library is not safe, and the new shared library 
package has to conflict with the previous shared library package. This 
is never desirable, since it causes significant disruption during 
upgrades and potentially breaks unpackaged third-party binaries, but is 
sometimes unavoidable. These situations are sufficiently rare that they 
usually warrant project-wide discussion, and are complex enough that the 
rules for them cannot be codified in Debian Policy."
<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#id6>

I've glanced over the last year of debian-devel and I haven't noticed 
any sign of the expected project-wide discussion.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-2-686-pae (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages libgpiod2 depends on:
ii  libc6       2.28-8
ii  libgcc1     1:8.3.0-2
ii  libstdc++6  8.3.0-2

libgpiod2 recommends no packages.

libgpiod2 suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Reply via email to