On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:51:58PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > [...] I'm taking hobu into the loop because he kindly contacted me about 1.6 last month. Do you have any comments? I guess the liblas_c contains the C binding while the liblas.so is C++ (?), but I could be wrong. So maybe we should retain a versioned name for the C++ interface to avoid possible future ABI breakage... Some clarifications about the API roadmap for liblas would be great.
> Indeed, the SONAME is bumped. > 1.6.0 builds liblas.so.2 and liblas_c.so.2 (and there are other differences, > such as cmake instead of autotools). > > The only reverse-dependency is python-liblas. So there's not even need to > coordinate the transition with the RT. > > However, 1.6.0 includes a python binding, which is identical to python-liblas > 1.6.0. Better, it includes a testsuite and code examples. > > libLAS 1.6.0 also includes C# bindings, which I believe worth building and > distributing in binary packages. > > Here's my proposed plan: > > 1. prepare liblas-1.6.0, with SONAME bumped (liblas2), and new binary > packages > (I still have to check the differences between liblas.so and liblas_c.so, > and if they deserve separate packages) > 2. ask for removal of python-liblas > 3. upload liblas to NEW > 4. package gets ACCEPTED > 5. PROFIT. > > There's no need of Conflicts, Breaks or such other things, as the version is > greater than the one currently in archive, so users will just see a new > version > of the python-liblas binary package (and they don't care about the originating > source package). > > Any comments? > > Kindly, > David > -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
