On 2022-12-31 10:29:48 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > Hi Christoph, > > On 31-12-2022 10:06, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > possible this is not a regular transition, but in exchange I guess it > > should be pretty smooth and simple ... > > Inside the Debian archive maybe, but ... > > > So src:libppd has been renamed to src:libppd-legacy, and has entered > > experimental yesterday. While doing so, I've fixed a longstanding > > mismatch in the soname version, hence the new number libppd-legacy*1*.
We have libppd0 with an incorrect SONAME already in oldoldstable (maybe also oldoldoldstable). We are not doing transition for such cases. That's gonna stick until we can properly remove libppd.so.1 from the archive. > I'm wondering what this means for users of the library that don't have > packages in the Debian archive. If some downstream (including the non > publicly published ones) (build) depend on the old library, they suddenly > get weird failures, right? That's why we are not doing those kind of transitions. Technically, the new libppd can start using libppd.so.2, but this sounds less than optimal. Can't the new one be named something else if it's not a successor to the old libppd? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
