Hi Frank, On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:07:56AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I would like to update libgpod in unstable. This would include both > a soname change and a -dev package name change. Why is this change important to include in the etch release? Why does the -dev package name need to change? E.g., scope of API changes, number of reverse-deps broken by these changes ( --> amount of work required to get these packages releasable again)? > Luckily the list of packages affected is pretty small (but the packages > on it are somewhat big ;) > amarok > rhythmbox > gtkpod > listen (?) -- honestly don't know wether this needs updating since > it uses the library through the python bindings > gtkpod is from the same upstream and a version that works with the new > library is ready. For the other packages I will need to research that. > All other packages can easily be build without libgpod, though. As upstream > declares the API still "unstable" this might not be the worst possible > solution... If the API is so unstable that all the reverse-deps will need source changes for the update, you may be right; OTOH, it's my impression that this library provides functionality that's rather significant to a number of users, so it would be a shame to see support for it dropped from the music players. > But before I start to look deeper into these issues I wanted to request > an opinion from the release team whether this transition is generally > possible and if it depends on any other current issues. Please try to reach a consensus with the maintainers of the reverse-deps (as you say, the list is short :) on how this should be handled for etch, prior to uploading to unstable. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
