On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:35:34 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Paleino <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:02:15 +0000, Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > >>> (new) libgphoto2-dev-doc_2.4.10.1-4_all.deb optional doc > >>> (new) libgphoto2-dev_2.4.10.1-4_i386.deb optional libdevel > >>> (new) libgphoto2-doc_2.4.10.1-4_all.deb optional doc > > >> Just for clarification, these are the NEW packages. The old > >> libgphoto2-2-dev has been renamed to libgphoto2-dev, to ease transitions > >> in case of a SONAME bump. > > [...] > > > Afaiui this does not actually ease any transition, it just > > makes it *now* instead of at some unknown point in the future. > > > Am I missing something? > > I am asking since there is a non-neglible cost of this transition, 15 > rc-bugs, making backports harder, etc.
Yes, you're missing that with no SONAME included in the package name, in case of a libgphoto2-3, a binNMU would be sufficient, instead of a sourceful upload. Not including the SONAME (as it was before), is now the generally recommended and accepted behaviour regarding libraries, for the reason above. If an application happens to work with the new SONAME, it just needs a binNMU. And, we're eventually talking of 15 RC bugs, not 150. Making this decision now, at the start of the Wheezy development cycle, is the best course of action IMHO. We have plenty of time to fix this. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-phototools-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-phototools-devel
