+ Sune Vuorela (Tue, 12 May 2009 12:08:20 +0200):

> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 11:50:53 Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Hello, KDE people.

> > I notice kdegraphics 4.2.2 provides a libkexiv2-7 binary, which is is a
> > "higher" SONAME than the one provided by the libkexiv2 source package
> > both in unstable and experimental. Does this mean the libkexiv2 source
> > package, together with its libkexiv2-{3,5} and libkexiv2-dev binary
> > packages, should be removed from unstable and experimental?

> > Additionally, I notice kdegraphics 4.2.2 provides libkexiv2-7-dev
> > instead of libkexiv2-dev. Is there a reason for this? I realize it has
> > very few reverse dependencies, but unless there's a reason for it, I
> > think it'd be much better if the old libkexiv2-dev could be preserved.
> > (We can talk about when would be the best timing to change it back.)

> The {3,5} ones are kde3 based libraries where the 7 is the kde4 based edition.

> At the time of packaging, it was unclear (and I'm still not fully sure) when 
> everything will be ready and moved to kde the kde4 versions.

Well, there's nothing left in unstable depending on the -3 one, but at
the same time it's FTBFSing against the new exiv2, so I was thinking
that iff its final destination is to get removed, I'd do the exiv2
transition without a recompiled libkexiv2 (which is possible since no
package depends on both libexiv and libkexiv). If its final destination
is not RM, then the FTBFS has to be fixed before exiv2/KDE4 can go
forward. Which one is it?

> I'm not sure there is much gain in keeping libkexiv2-dev, except for pure 
> aestethical reasons.  There should be no way to move from -{3,5} to -7 
> without 
> major source changes.

Right, but when eg libkexiv2-7 gets bumped to libkexiv2-8, what are you
going to do with the development package name? One would want to be able
to schedule Bin-NMUs, etc.


- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
        -- Rory and Lorelai


Reply via email to