On 2013-05-04 11:17 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński wrote: > A nit: in the intermediate step, would CSWpidginotr be 3.2.1 rather than > 3.2.0?
No, I intend to do it quickly, so without bothering to push 3.2.1. Does that matter? I guess I could do it if it does. > 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. Well, there will be a dependency: CSWotr depends on CSWlibotr5 which depends on CSWlibotr2 (followed the flac libs there). So that's the one that would be ultimately removed when all other dependencies are rebuilt against CSWlibotr5. There should be no dependency at all on CSWotr in the end (AFAICT, there is no reason to). > Also, CSWotrdevel could go away in the target state. I think we can be > a bit more aggressive with development package renames and deletions. Okay, how to make sure that it'll go away when somebody runs pkgutil --cleanup? > Broken dep on a library: bad. > Broken dep on a development package: meh. Agreed. Laurent _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
