On 9/13/21 11:21 PM, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote: > Op 03-09-2021 om 19:15 schreef Maarten L. Hekkelman: >> Now what? Were my ideas correct and should I update the SONAME? If so do I >> have to request a Debian Developer to upload? Of do I have to submit this as >> a new software package? Or do I simply revert the SONAME and pray no one >> notices the binary difference. The last option is easiest, but of course not >> the best. > > So I followed the advice and the new binary package for the library is named > libzeep5.1. This is all accepted into unstable but now I run into > regressions. libpdb-redo is linked against libzeep5 and an application built > with libpdb-redo is linked against both libzeep5 and libzeep5.1... > > Ehrm... now what? I guess I need to upload a new version of libpdb-redo so it > will build with libzeep5.1 instead of libzeep5? Or is there anything else I > need to do?
Ideally, you'd request something called a BinNMU[1][2] But since there is only libpdb-redo that depends on libzeep, simply uploading a new changelog revision of libpdb-redo _should_ do the trick, ideally. [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#binary-only-nmu [2]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#source-nmus-vs-binary-only-nmus-binnmus Cheers, -- Nilesh Patra Debian Developer, Uploading ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ [email protected] / nileshpatra.info / tchncs.de ⠈⠳⣄
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
