Hi Simon,

Thanks for helping :)

Simon McVittie a écrit le 27/08/2015 00:36 :
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 at 12:15:10 +0200, Gilles Filippini wrote:
>> hdf5 in experimental have a soversion bump. From there I'm unsure about
>> what to do right now.
> 
> This SONAME bump means the necessary rename has taken place in experimental.
> What do you plan to do about unstable?
> 
> There are basically two options:
> 
> * send the experimental version to unstable, if you believe this to
>   have a low risk of derailing the g++-5 transition, and in
>   particular all the reverse-dependencies still build;
> 
> * do a "v5" rename in unstable, similar to
>   https://patches.ubuntu.com/h/hdf5/hdf5_1.8.13+docs-15ubuntu2.patch
> 
> My advice would be to choose whichever of those you think is
> lower-risk.

IMHO either way is equal in risk. There are 60+ rdepends on hdf5 and I'd
very much prefer managing one direct transition to release 1.8.15 than
two transitions (to v5 then to 1.8.15).

> The release team have said[1] that starting the transition is OK for any
> library whose library dependencies have all either started *their*
> transitions, or been confirmed not to need transitions. hdf5
> doesn't appear to depend on any C++ libraries except mpich, which
> doesn't seem to be affected by this whole mess due to having a
> simpler ABI than most C++ libraries - so I think hdf5 is ready
> to go?

The hdf5 c++ lib is not built for any of the MPI variants (because not
supported upstream). Then, from what you wrote, I'd said that hdf5 is
ready to go.

But idealy I guess I'm expected to test the build of every rdepends,
which will take some time.

> (If you require confirmation from the release team I can try to
> get that, but I don't think they are going to be able to follow up
> on each of the dozens of parallel transitions involved in the libstdc++
> ABI change, which is why I'm trying to help keep things moving.)

I just don't understand why this bug was assigned back to src:hdf5. A
piece of explanation from vorlon would have been appreciated. Anyway,
I'll assign it back to release.d.o when I'll have the rdepends builds
checked.

Thanks again for your help!

_g.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list
Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel

Reply via email to