Hi Mirco, On Sat, 22 Aug, 2009 at 07:30:10PM +0200, Mirco Bauer wrote: > Hi Varun, > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:51:56 -0400 > Varun Hiremath <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Micro, > > I am not that small *cough*
I am extremely sorry about that typo. > > Hmm.. but, won't the old 2.1.5 binary package be removed from the > > archive once we upload this new version, since the source package name > > is the same? > > Yes, the archive admins are regularly running cleanup processes that > will remove binary packages that are not build by and source package. > > This is expected and still will allow a smooth upgrade path for all > users that have the old version installed and now can install the new > version without the need of waiting for a completed transition. > > Renaming a library package introduces implicitly a transition, all > rdeps have to be rebuild (and updated build-deps in our case). Ok, in that case since all the rdeps: f-spot, dfo and gnome-do-plugins are under the pkg-cli-apps team, can I upload this new version to unstable and then update these rdeps accordingly? Should I do some other tests before uploading libflickrnet2.2-cil to unstable. I already built dfo and f-spot with the new version and there weren't any problems but I'm not sure about runtime issues. > > Could you please point me to some policy page which > > explains this upgrade process for binary package name change? I > > couldn't find anything on Google. > > That's a good question, I don't know any that covers the library > transitioning part. The simple rename case is described here though: > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#s5.9.3 Thanks, I actually looked at that section, but I wasn't sure if it was referring to change in source package name or binary package name. Thanks, Varun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
