"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" writes:

> Hello,
> On Thursday 07 July 2011 13:35:24 Alberto Luaces wrote:
>> > I already saw that you corrected in the VCS the Standard Version and
>> > dpatch issue.  If you want me to upload new revisions please tell me,
>> > since I can do it.
>> Hmmm... and besides that, it would automatically trigger the
>> recompilation on armel, since they updated libqt4 yesterday with the
>> changes for not using GLES for the moment. I don't know if we should or
>> not, maybe we can wait a few days to see if new things appear. By then I
>> could also have solved the remaining informative lintian issues shown in
>> http://lintian.debian.org/full/l...@debian.org.html#openscenegraph .
> Well, let's take advantage of my power of DM, it's been a while since I 
> don't take part in a release of OSG :)
> In the case that there are remaining issues we will upload again, or wait 
> for 3.0.1 (which maybe they release soon with bugfixes, who knows).
> (Note: I tried to upload a new revision but it won't build at the moment, 
> the packages depend on libjpeg-dev which is in a transition between 62 and 
> 8.  I think that the culprit is libgdal-dev and libhdf*.  Trying to set our 
> dependency to the old 62 temporarily so we can upload versions doesn't help, 
> because some other library does pull 8, and generates the conflicts anyway).

Ok, thanks for it!. Meanwhile I'm removing the symbol files I put last
week. I'm having issues with them and I don't know yet why. The
packaging system is complaining about symbol changes when compiled with
different GCC versions. This shouldn't be happening since the are all
supposed to be ABI compatible.

>> You have explained yourself pretty clear. The reason why I stopped
>> conflicting with previous versions was that I have been warned against
>> doing that quite strongly ([1] and [2]) by people that don't want to
>> recompile all their stuff as soon as OSG ABI changes.
>> [...] I don't know if this makes sense to you.
> I didn't recall that, and it makes sense, yep.  If this is a viable 
> solution, let's keep it.
> IIRC Breaks/Conflicts is mostly for when two packages contain the exactly 
> the same files (I can't remember the exact difference between them, nor 
> recommended usage, but probably there's documentation explaining it with 
> examples).  As long as the .so.SOVERSION is different, they shouldn't 
> conflict then.

Yes, we don't have any packages which have the same contents and
different names, so we are safe in that sense. I'll take care of this in
the next days.

> But in that case, shouldn't be all of the Conflicts be removed?

Yes, you are right. There are some things in the control file that could
be safely removed now as that one you mention, or the explicit
dependency on gcc >= 3.0.0, now that even stable meets that requirement
by default.

>> Oh, that was it! You really solved the puzzle for me :) I was scratching
>> my head because I couldn't understand where that warning came from. I
>> think the most correct should be — as the issue appeared because of my
>> name being present in a new release — to just acknowledge the NMU in the
>> next release, but I would be weird if, for example, I would acknowledge
>> my own NMU! Besides that, I wonder if someone besides the Maintainer can
>> acknowledge NMUs...
> OK, I added you as an Uploader, and kept the changelog entry signed as you.  
> Let's see what happens when we can really upload it.

Thank you! It's much appreciated :)

> Nevermind about the acknowledgements, nobody really cares about that.
> Your're bodyguarded by Great Loic, who protects you agains furious evils 
> lurking in the Debian realm :P
> Now, really, no kidding.  I learned this the hard way.  I didn't want to set 
> myself as Maintainer/Uploader of a package because I was not a DD not DM, 
> but then when I submitted my application, I was not considered very 
> seriously among other reasons because I did not appear listed in those 
> fields... and people told me that I should have added myself, so...

The fact that anybody can appear as uploader would explain why most of
the actions are reserved to DDs only.

> ----
> Regarding: "Use --as-needed option of the linker in order to cut unused 
> dependencies down", I saw this recently in debian-mentors mailing list:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00193.html
> Not that I want to remove what you added, in fact the guy doesn't give any 
> explanation and there's no replies to it -- just saying that if the new 
> revisions start causing weird "mandelbugs" it might be a good idea to 
> remember this.

I'll remember that in case we find problems. I also don't know where
that advice comes from — the only thing I can think is, for example, a
library whose users expect to carry some dependencies for other
libraries. For example, people expecting for OSG to carry automatically
libjpeg without having to declare it specifically when linking their own
code that calls libjepg directly... I'll do a research anyway in order
to find possible issues.



Pkg-osg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to