On 21 June 2016 at 10:00, Jaromír Mikeš <mira.mi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-06-20 18:02 GMT+02:00 James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org>: >> On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 17:00 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: >>> 2016-06-18 12:23 GMT+02:00 James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org>: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 22:25 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: >>> > > can safely upload package now? Soname was bumped. >>> > >>> > I can upload this for you if you want, though there are some >>> > issues. >>> > >>> > librtaudio5 is already taken and in use in jessie. To reuse this >>> > number, the ABI must be identical (which I have not checked). I'm >>> > still not sure I can believe what I'm reading here: >>> > >>> > librtaudio4 | 4.0.10~ds0-2 | wheezy | amd64 >>> > librtaudio4v5 | 4.1.1~ds0-4 | stretch | amd64 >>> > librtaudio4v5 | 4.1.1~ds0-4 | sid | amd64 >>> > librtaudio5 | 4.1.1~ds0-2 | jessie | amd64 >> >> I still don't like this. Although it probably won't effect most people, >> it will break reverse dependencies if you try to do a partial upgrade >> from jessie to stretch. >> >> I think you either need to do a local soname change (not 6!), or rename >> the package to something like librtaudio5a and have it Conflicts the >> old package name. >> >> That corresponds to the second renaming case on this page (there is no >> SONAME change when compared to jessie): >> https://wiki.debian.org/TransitionBestPractices > > Ok I renamed package to librtaudio5a and add Conflicts for librtaudio5. > Now get package-name-doesnt-match-sonames librtaudio5 ... lintian error. > > renaming librtaudio.so.5.0.0 to librtaudio.so.5a.0.0 should be enough?
I suggest overriding this error. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers