On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 04:46:47PM -0400, Kevin Vandersloot wrote: > Hi Sven. I'm cc's Andrew Sobala who actually produced the latest > release. I believe that binary compatibility was not broken between the > two releases, so the soname change is probably not warrented. > > I'm not sure about 2) :( > > To clarify Bastien's comments: I'm kinda the maintainer right now since > I wrote GNOME System Monitor and noone remains to maintain libgtop. > Unfortunately I know very little about the libgtop code and am a little > afraid to mess with it ;) > > I think everyone agrees that a replacement would be nice (especially > since libgtop doesn't build on Solaris ATM). Otherwise we need someone > to step in and really maintain the code. I don't really have to time to > do it. However, right now there is no replacement available so there is > no plan to move to a different library.
Ok, in the meantime, i have backported the security patch to the previous version, and uploaded a new package with a fake version number (2.0.2.is.2.0.1-1). It solved the urgency, until the maintainer of the libgtop2 package takes over again, or someone else takes the package over. I don't know enough about libgtop2 and sonames to give an advice, but if you have an idea who and why the soname did get changed, maybe you could release a new version with this fixed ? The probleme in 2) seem to be linked to a bug (other say a feature) of libtool. I don't really know much about libtool, as my main area of interrest lies elsewhere (i package ocaml stuff, and do X and kernel work), so i am not the best person to give advice on this, but libgtop2 was broken in debian since more than a week, the maintainer was too busy, and nobody else bothered, so i stepped in and fixed it in a quick emergency way. Friendly, Sven Luther
