2013/5/4 Laurent Blume <[email protected]> > > The current status is this: > otr CSWotr 3.2.0,REV=2009.03.30 113.2 KB > otrdevel CSWotrdevel 3.2.0,REV=2009.03.30 20.2 KB > pidginotr CSWpidginotr 3.2.0,REV=2009.02.03 74.7 KB > > What I'm targeting is this: > libotr2 CSWlibotr2 3.2.1 > libotr5 CSWlibotr5 4.0.0 > otr CSWotr 4.0.0 > otr_dev CSWotr-dev 4.0.0 > pidginotr CSWpidginotr 4.0.0 > > With an intermediate step of this: > libotr2 CSWlibotr2 3.2.1 > otr CSWotr 3.2.1 > otrdevel_stub CSWotrdevel 3.2.1 > otr_dev CSWotr-dev 3.2.1 > pidginotr CSWpidginotr 3.2.0 > > > Does it make sense?
A nit: in the intermediate step, would CSWpidginotr be 3.2.1 rather than 3.2.0? I like your plan: first splitting the package without changing the version (too much) and making space for new sonames, then updating the version and building the new soname. Ideally, in the target state you'd also break the dependency between CSWotr and CSWlibotr2; current reverse dependencies of CSWotr are small: it's just mcabber. So if you rebuilt mcabber too, you could make CSWotr not depend on CSWlibotr2 and drop CSWlibotr2 entirely. Also, CSWotrdevel could go away in the target state. I think we can be a bit more aggressive with development package renames and deletions. Broken dep on a library: bad. Broken dep on a development package: meh. Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
