Hi Neil, On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:36:45PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > Regarding #418637.
> I've prepared a new release of deb-gview which Build-Depends on > libarchive-dev. libarchive1 has been replaced by libarchive2 in > unstable but I cannot find any ABI/API change as yet - I use deb-gview > and reprepro regularly (I suspect others would use the two together as > well) and when I recompiled deb-gview and reprepro against libarchive2, > both compiled and functioned perfectly. > I'm ready to make an upload of deb-gview and I'm wondering if a binNMU > of reprepro is worthwhile to allow deb-gview, libarchive2 and reprepro > to be installable together. > It does seem to be working around the problem in libarchive, rather > than fixing it, so I'm really asking whether a binNMU of reprepro is the > best solution to #418637. If there are no changes in ABI between libarchive1 and libarchive2, the best here is to revert the package rename, if necessary keeping a libarchive.so.1 -> libarchive.so.2 compat symlink in the package for compatibility both with upstream and with previous Debian versions. If there is some reason that this solution would be inadequate I will be happy to schedule binNMUs, but from here it looks like that would be a wrong fix. 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]
