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 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.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkgfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel