On 13/07/10 08:40, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:49:15 (EDT), Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:28:59 +0200, Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> >> wrote: >>> I doubt that we can pull a new upstream version into a stable Ubuntu >>> release (e.g. vlc 1.1.0 in Ubuntu 10.04), because the new version breaks >>> the ABI of the older version and therefore break applications that uses >>> libvlc. >> >> Not true for 9.10 which ships 1.0.2, while 1.0.6 has no known security >> issues. > > So let's check: > > | vlc | 0.8.6.release.e+x264svn20071224+faad2.6.1-0ubuntu3.3 | > hardy-updates/universe | source > | vlc | 0.9.9a-2ubuntu1 | jaunty/multiverse | source, amd64, i386 > | vlc | 1.0.2-1ubuntu2 | karmic/universe | source, amd64, i386 > | vlc | 1.0.2-1ubuntu2.1 | karmic-updates/universe | source, amd64, i386 > | vlc | 1.0.6-1ubuntu1 | lucid/universe | source, amd64, i386 > | vlc | 1.0.6-1ubuntu1.1 | lucid-updates/universe | source, amd64, i386 > | vlc | 1.1.0-2ubuntu1 | maverick/universe | source, amd64, i386 > > so in hardy we have basically the same situation as in > debian/stable. We could argue that it is unsupportable and try to get it > removed.
% apt-cache rdepends libvlc2 libvlc2 Reverse Depends: vlc-nox mozilla-plugin-vlc libvlc-dev % apt-cache showsrc vlc-nox libvlc-dev mozilla-plugin-vlc| \ grep Package: | uniq Package: vlc So the ABI issue is a non-issue, since nobody uses libvlc outside of vlc itself. But I do agree that the stable update process can be too strict. Alternatives include backports or moving vlc to volatile (for debian at least). -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers