Hi, On 23/04/18 17:01, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 23.04.2018 17:09, James Cowgill wrote: >> On 23/04/18 15:55, Debian FTP Masters wrote: >>> binary:libsynfig0 is NEW. >>> binary:libsynfig0 is NEW. >> >> Unfortunately, since you failed to follow the NMU procedure by not >> uploading the diff anywhere (again), I can't check for myself, but I >> would like to know how you have managed to make this library compatible >> with the pre-gcc5 version shipped with jessie (which is what you are >> doing by renaming it back to libsynfig0). >> >> If I diff the symbols between 1.0-1 and 1.0-2 there _a lot_ of >> differences relating to std::string, so I would be surprised if you >> fixed this. > > I doubt that we are supporting updates directly from jessie to buster. The > update from stretch to buster should be fine.
That isn't the point though. Renaming the package is pointless and has potentially negative consequences with no benefits (as far as I can see). > For other packages it has been common practice to drop the v5 suffix. I am not aware of any other package which has reverted back to the pre-gcc5 package name and I think it would be wrong to do so. I would be interested if you have some examples. > debian diff attached. Thanks. The rest of the changes look fine. James
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
