Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On 03/03/12 14:01, Julien Cristau wrote: Feel free to go ahead now. libconfig 1.4.8-2 has been uploaded to unstable. Please schedule binNMUs against the following packages: * flush * libffado * libguestfs * lldpad * meterec * qwo * yubiserver I believe the wanna-build lingo is: nmu flush libffado libguestfs lldpad meterec qwo yubiserver . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against libconfig9.' Thanks for all your help during this transition. Jon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 02:34:51 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: As far as I can see, sitplus is the only package involved in other transitions. Once the opencv transition is over, am I ok so look for a sponsor to review and upload my package to unstable? Feel free to go ahead now. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/12 18:45, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: I've fixed these and reuploaded 1.4.8-1 to mentors now. libconfig 1.4.8-1~exp1 is currently in experimental and I have now uploaded libconfig 1.4.8-2 to mentors.d.n. libconfig (1.4.8-2) unstable; urgency=low * Upload to unstable * Update to S-V 3.9.3 * debian/rules now uses dpkg-buildflags * Provide full transitional packages to help -dev package rename * Multiple lintian fixes - out-of-date-standards-version - copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright - extended-description-is-probably-too-short - unneeded-build-dep-on-quilt -- Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:11:47 + The following packages rebuild correctly and just need a binNMU: * flush * libffado * libguestfs * lldpad * meterec * qwo * yubiserver The following packages require a sourceful upload: * sitplus (#661403) The following packages are RC buggy and not in testing: * ldc A number of packages still have the old libconfig(++)8-dev package in their B-D. I have filed bug reports against these packages, but I guess these are not critical given that there is a transition package being provided too. As far as I can see, sitplus is the only package involved in other transitions. Once the opencv transition is over, am I ok so look for a sponsor to review and upload my package to unstable? Thanks, Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPTuBLAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53b8ikH/AoIsPTbpzJECDpCmY27ACG4 XMZkbsKu790+p2zZ1wBrWZpGdD3vdjiG+OeQ+BZcdlD857VPJSWhw6z/KqGZ/WEH 2Hw1qnPatDPvSuSSJUvqFSv2vdy+SUHlY6UkXMdp1EYMWKmxqf4NWuycTGIfxDaF TaMctGmGMKqrY5B4nJBF4Rba9xe+WzdS+3jCt0DAU4wRI+K/8Mrl6R2Uo3pV/Sv4 yoi/qcYccpFqv7OSd36wOOB8hqVG/1kaSGjK3Yl3Kx5IIb2bsoSUQOALLZ0aa128 p/RVhDyFP2Rl01+gDen3qlvVEyZqwbN+UmYdTELHpXDemNcJAMpcMSLlcRCkWX0= =LuXU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f4ee04b.3060...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 19:21:02 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: I have upload a new version of libconfig to mentors, with the following changelog: this change to debian/rules looks weird: - $(MAKE) install DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp + $(MAKE) install DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp install the loop around dh_makeshlibs looks kind of crazy too. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/12 13:44, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 19:21:02 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: I have upload a new version of libconfig to mentors, with the following changelog: this change to debian/rules looks weird: - $(MAKE) install DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp + $(MAKE) install DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp install Whoops. That shouldn't be like that. the loop around dh_makeshlibs looks kind of crazy too. That is how it was done in previous releases. I've changed that to use hardcoded values now. I've fixed these and reuploaded 1.4.8-1 to mentors now. Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPOAi8AAoJEJ6XA7Whh53bLhcIAI9xUQAOx1RE+ospMmM0kWQO 0qtxw2lcCxBMAVXL0aT4ES2JLxu819PWMHn1JJyCjbCupWlJT4OinxlG1mbrjgZB OQIU3IBPYaZTiihgwJlUFW08IEDsvOmjhuLhIXBstGwH+MK7CMBEVYO4d9TvOVJq HhP4nCEAezIRUegaN9C4C2RsQ8oewi3Ru8wuL8M9EPSWEu/JL8Eaf1az117dBryX 5ArDiVgndsoC8vPMicioDzGYmg3KEuV35ZKUanJB3QvZzV35dR6XVuIo3W0lsC7a AeqycPKFmKdQvcexE2Sk0P3eAmBbHvczLTSrPlZ9gUDXebg2UJBtJKF0mFmuEPU= =LP2b -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f3808bc.3090...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/02/12 23:02, Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 23:08:17 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: This is my first upload which requires a transition, and I am unsure of what happens next. It seems common for packages to be uploaded to experimental for a time prior to the actual transistion to allow other maintainers update their packages accordingly. I was wondering will this be the case with this transition? For the record, we talked on irc, and Jonathan will upload a new version with the -dev package changed to experimental, so reverse deps can be tested against that. I have upload a new version of libconfig to mentors, with the following changelog: libconfig (1.4.8-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release (closes: #583528) - soname bump to 9 * Update to S-V 3.9.2 * Update to Debhelper v7 * Refresh Build-Depends packages * Add debug packages * Remove SONAME from -dev package names - Build as virtual packages for reverse dependency purposes. * Fix examples (closes: #632081) -- Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:13:26 + If this is acceptable, it can then be uploaded to experimental for rdep testing. Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPNr+eAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53bXlAH/1OlznVg4Ko0fKd/RUGdRLDi uKXuiKGucE88W/urtAOvnpePsBy5bXhAvWgIaT93jW5MpP7OojWMpIPpnuv6+Pli 1GjXlcLdpZEDjnRjtQGiOfrfS1frzICIohukfGdhj499fumW/mgcq3+GVN5Pw2C9 5USdamah7rP++unJdG3ItxuautDYF709gIG7hhlBpP8PMAcoSgB8YGzd2ByqdeSV XXgzgTG2TEPzoBpFGGg2nUTCoU75cgty6hyR5I/bIlHaT6lHBXDOiOJWK9bYvcBt OOhD3HqixTy4FblDX58lTGdt2lE9yJqz1p/JLxD7omcswoHBVI4s7WmiYHZbLpI= =dZvV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f36bf9e.2050...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
Hi Jose, On 03/02/12 00:50, Jose Luis Tallón wrote: My apologies if you did send an e-mail and I didn't read it. My inbox is severely overloaded as of lately... Isn't it good style to notify the maintainer and/or coordinate with them before an NMU ? Apologies. I posted on the -devel thread that I had prepared a package and uploaded to mentors back in December [1] because you said you gave up trying to upload the package [2]. On 31/01/12 00:08, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristaujcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. Yup! All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. Yes, please. Being bitten a couple times already after not checking buildability of r-deps... it is the library maintainer's responsibility, after all. If its ok, I'll leave the package as is. Sigh. I can change it if it makes it easier for you so. Your paragraph above made it sound as if it didn't matter which way it was done. To clarify, what is the process for this transition? Will the package be uploaded to experimental to allow me to report bug reports and patches against dependant packages? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. This is my first upload which requires a transition, and I am unsure of what happens next. Please read the library maintainer's guide first (or re-read if needed). It does avoid many a headache... It seems common for packages to be uploaded to experimental for a time prior to the actual transistion to allow other maintainers update their packages accordingly. I was wondering will this be the case with this transition? Well, unfortunately for the world (some would say ;) ), not too many packages depend on libconfig; Nor are they very complex. Therefore, a full transition via experimental and involving the RM is not needed, AFAIK. Just notifying the depending maintainers should suffice (it would be different during freeze, of course) I have already spoken to Julien and I will upload a new package with the -dev packages fixed to experimental. Just drop me a line if I can be of any help. Will do. Thanks, Jon 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/12/msg7.html 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/11/msg00416.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2f25ac.4050...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 23:08:17 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: This is my first upload which requires a transition, and I am unsure of what happens next. It seems common for packages to be uploaded to experimental for a time prior to the actual transistion to allow other maintainers update their packages accordingly. I was wondering will this be the case with this transition? For the record, we talked on irc, and Jonathan will upload a new version with the -dev package changed to experimental, so reverse deps can be tested against that. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
Hi, Jonathan My apologies if you did send an e-mail and I didn't read it. My inbox is severely overloaded as of lately... Isn't it good style to notify the maintainer and/or coordinate with them before an NMU ? On 31/01/12 00:08, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristaujcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. Yup! All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. Yes, please. Being bitten a couple times already after not checking buildability of r-deps... it is the library maintainer's responsibility, after all. If its ok, I'll leave the package as is. Sigh. I can change it if it makes it easier for you so. Your paragraph above made it sound as if it didn't matter which way it was done. To clarify, what is the process for this transition? Will the package be uploaded to experimental to allow me to report bug reports and patches against dependant packages? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. This is my first upload which requires a transition, and I am unsure of what happens next. Please read the library maintainer's guide first (or re-read if needed). It does avoid many a headache... It seems common for packages to be uploaded to experimental for a time prior to the actual transistion to allow other maintainers update their packages accordingly. I was wondering will this be the case with this transition? Well, unfortunately for the world (some would say ;) ), not too many packages depend on libconfig; Nor are they very complex. Therefore, a full transition via experimental and involving the RM is not needed, AFAIK. Just notifying the depending maintainers should suffice (it would be different during freeze, of course) Just drop me a line if I can be of any help. TIA J.L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2b2f47.2000...@adv-solutions.net
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 15:00:23 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: On 27/01/12 19:23, Julien Cristau wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24:56 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. If its ok, I'll leave the package as is. Sigh. To clarify, what is the process for this transition? Will the package be uploaded to experimental to allow me to report bug reports and patches against dependant packages? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30/01/12 19:15, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 15:00:23 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: On 27/01/12 19:23, Julien Cristau wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24:56 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. If its ok, I'll leave the package as is. Sigh. I can change it if it makes it easier for you so. Your paragraph above made it sound as if it didn't matter which way it was done. To clarify, what is the process for this transition? Will the package be uploaded to experimental to allow me to report bug reports and patches against dependant packages? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. This is my first upload which requires a transition, and I am unsure of what happens next. It seems common for packages to be uploaded to experimental for a time prior to the actual transistion to allow other maintainers update their packages accordingly. I was wondering will this be the case with this transition? Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPJyLhAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53bSLkH+gPIvSxmXV/flNb8OeTbQTjz we7Df28cckf4SrqMA2/scs1womzy88xgdXpSRhHFlhFpRt+2voKXfVMDoM0A9Mth +7tQTivdz41+FAWt5oLMNT96vAvHIebxTSAREroEZZjPm0129u4LoSleJsIx/gM/ swcB3Jp3N9fHOcXYu5VC+WiOMqNgalaCTcbT4BWdxZkP7Xf2XvIQ0I+347ncIU5d UOtOzHdqheHh0Nw6FZdxvBHttUqwUqVqylcjLKPuxMMleL4JgZ4oIOCqFlfUEdtk DsfcuTANX3H2xwhM82YQ41SXXlExTJ4G5zQ3i5N8JFDLSc2uvwk+neBk7ubUT6k= =Nyvp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2722e1.3030...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27/01/12 19:23, Julien Cristau wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24:56 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. If its ok, I'll leave the package as is. To clarify, what is the process for this transition? Will the package be uploaded to experimental to allow me to report bug reports and patches against dependant packages? Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPJA2HAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53b4OYIAIK+xBiOsVDMEufwF94shlGK YYhkRhpxtDiYuu+upm5AIN1WDCGlmq617kUSE8tCui1dgQFdXmOP9geXjsXViBCl DHTi1UDxjmZ278AanhKd0tIiYdmWrSk7hsBFRh0HpFx2eUjnv4xutuuyB18DRbEI jVvR56nNwTKpRgki6A+Eh0SwX1xe8tRku+1zYlOnUiOqs5PchRHe14uOhEYDs4qP x4vhC1VxjvIBkKNSleSBjJJp87BYnTD/sWoQ7gjIUo/gUsi7Lt1NUZySi+M6SEd1 7olD5CgBuDnTk8uOtl+F9C72O/nR1mDGE3erRbi00Ksa9oFYQH2uVcVmFshIzM8= =GQyP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f240d87.3050...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:02:57 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Hi Cyril, AFAICT the primary ABI change between these versions is that upstream has depreciated longs and replaced with ints in an effort to standardise lengths across platforms. Assuming updating the Build-depends field in debian/control (to reflect the new package name) is not counted as a source change: Please don't change the -dev package name. All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d34e115e-4eda-42e9-beaf-334bdcf16...@email.android.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24:56 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
Dear mentors/release team, I am looking for both a sponsor and a transition slot for my package libconfig. It is an updated version of an existing Debian package. See discussion regarding libconfig here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/11/msg00406.html * Package name: libconfig Version : 1.4.8-1 Upstream Author : Mark Lindner mark.a.lind...@gmail.com * URL : http://www.hyperrealm.com/libconfig/ * License : LGPL Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libconfig++9 - parsing and manipulation of structured configuration files(C++ bi libconfig++9-dbg - debug symbols for libconfig++9 libconfig++9-dev - parsing and manipulation of structured config files(C++ developme libconfig9 - parsing and manipulation of structured configuration files libconfig9-dbg - debug symbols for libconfig9 libconfig9-dev - parsing and manipulation of structured config files(development) An ABI compatibility report was kindly generated by Andrey Ponomarenko, and is available here: http://xi.dereenigne.org/libconfig/abi_compat_report.html apt-rdepends lists the following reverse dependencies: libconfig8 Reverse Depends: guestfish (1:1.14.8-3) Reverse Depends: guestmount (1:1.14.8-3) Reverse Depends: libconfig8-dev (= 1.3.2-2) Reverse Depends: libguestfs-tools (1:1.14.8-3) Reverse Depends: lldpad (0.9.43+git20111215.c0498b-1) Reverse Depends: qwo (0.5-2) Reverse Depends: sitplus (1.0.1-2) Reverse Depends: yubiserver (0.1-1) libconfig++8 Reverse Depends: flush (0.9.11-2) Reverse Depends: ldc (0.9.1+hg1634-1) Reverse Depends: libconfig++8-dev (= 1.3.2-2) Reverse Depends: libffado2 (2.0.99+svn1995-3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libconfig Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libc/libconfig/libconfig_1.4.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Jonathan McCrohan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f21c630.5020...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
Hi Jonathan, Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com (26/01/2012): apt-rdepends lists the following reverse dependencies: libconfig8 Reverse Depends: guestfish (1:1.14.8-3) Reverse Depends: guestmount (1:1.14.8-3) Reverse Depends: libconfig8-dev (= 1.3.2-2) Reverse Depends: libguestfs-tools (1:1.14.8-3) Reverse Depends: lldpad (0.9.43+git20111215.c0498b-1) Reverse Depends: qwo (0.5-2) Reverse Depends: sitplus (1.0.1-2) Reverse Depends: yubiserver (0.1-1) libconfig++8 Reverse Depends: flush (0.9.11-2) Reverse Depends: ldc (0.9.1+hg1634-1) Reverse Depends: libconfig++8-dev (= 1.3.2-2) Reverse Depends: libffado2 (2.0.99+svn1995-3) do these only need a rebuild (binNMU) to get properly linked against the new binaries, or do they also need source changes? If some of them fail to build (due to the new libconfig, or due to other reasons), please report bugs and mention them in your reply. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Cyril, AFAICT the primary ABI change between these versions is that upstream has depreciated longs and replaced with ints in an effort to standardise lengths across platforms. Assuming updating the Build-depends field in debian/control (to reflect the new package name) is not counted as a source change: On 26/01/12 22:18, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com (26/01/2012): apt-rdepends lists the following reverse dependencies: libconfig8 Reverse Depends: guestfish (1:1.14.8-3) binNMU Reverse Depends: guestmount (1:1.14.8-3) binNMU Reverse Depends: libconfig8-dev (= 1.3.2-2) Not relevant. libconfig9-dev as part of upload. Reverse Depends: libguestfs-tools (1:1.14.8-3) binNMU Reverse Depends: lldpad (0.9.43+git20111215.c0498b-1) binNMU Reverse Depends: qwo (0.5-2) Unable to check, FTBFS bug (#657562) Reverse Depends: sitplus (1.0.1-2) Source change required to fix long to int conversion. Reverse Depends: yubiserver (0.1-1) binNMU libconfig++8 Reverse Depends: flush (0.9.11-2) binNMU Reverse Depends: ldc (0.9.1+hg1634-1) Unable to check, FTBFS bug (#657566) Reverse Depends: libconfig++8-dev (= 1.3.2-2) Not relevant. libconfig++9-dev as part of upload. Reverse Depends: libffado2 (2.0.99+svn1995-3) binNMU Regards, Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPIffBAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53bBrEH/1DGGl7XjoCiA8yYkAkmqGQ1 hBkLIraEgYQB0FsD9PrZu9Qok27r9AoJjWeMrbzTPQFNW0F+9piAKhNzOR9GW3qb 0Ola0XlJs6849XfPjKcUDlVDcn0Vu4tyv1OnmjJgOva3F3ST6Pxb4JpCvoR0ifBO 6NlMBEWtNb9/GllMhsJXPUEwcLuXiRrdA95oNMau6RvNk9DWlJmakDCDeCu/0/Ow UhN2dd+By6Y1kZmRGKPEjEl2zCDOgRT0o/7ITQwkFhSgorTTEjfp4eYAvXdlzYnh ePgChN0Ua3zbqLMDCqWm46FVyOWl6275HnHLDFJArF8LPENv8MX5d947xLn8XVM= =eQlI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f21f7c1.6040...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 01:02 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Assuming updating the Build-depends field in debian/control (to reflect the new package name) is not counted as a source change: In this context, the difference between can binNMUed and needs source change is basically whether an upload of the package is required. If changes to debian/control are required, there'll need to be a new upload and that's a source change. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1327645593.20369.9.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:02:57 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Hi Cyril, AFAICT the primary ABI change between these versions is that upstream has depreciated longs and replaced with ints in an effort to standardise lengths across platforms. Assuming updating the Build-depends field in debian/control (to reflect the new package name) is not counted as a source change: Please don't change the -dev package name. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
