FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-15-2009, 08:49 PM
Vincent Bernat
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

OoO En cette soirée bien amorcée du dimanche 15 février 2009, vers
22:16, Gonéri Le Bouder <goneri@rulezlan.org> disait*:

> I uploaded libode 0.11 in experimental. Can you please, test it with
> your package and adjust your build dependency in order to able to build
> it with libode-dev or libode0-dev.
> Please, note that "enable double precision" has be enabled.

> I'll upload ode 0.11 in unstable in the coming days unless an anormal
> behaviour is detected.

Hi Goneri!

Which package should we use between libode-dev and libode0-dev? They
both provide /usr/lib/libode.a without being in conflict.
--
I WILL NOT HIDE THE TEACHER'S PROZAC
I WILL NOT HIDE THE TEACHER'S PROZAC
I WILL NOT HIDE THE TEACHER'S PROZAC
-+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 3G03
 
Old 02-15-2009, 08:55 PM
Julien Cristau
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 22:16 +0100, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> I uploaded libode 0.11 in experimental. Can you please, test it with
> your package and adjust your build dependency in order to able to build
> it with libode-dev or libode0-dev.

What's the point of changing the -dev package name, if you're not
keeping the old one around? This seems to cause more pain for no
reason.

Cheers,
Julien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-15-2009, 08:58 PM
Vincent Bernat
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

OoO En cette soirée bien amorcée du dimanche 15 février 2009, vers
22:49, je disais:

>> I uploaded libode 0.11 in experimental. Can you please, test it with
>> your package and adjust your build dependency in order to able to build
>> it with libode-dev or libode0-dev.

After a second read, maybe this should be "libode-dev | libode0-dev". I
thought that we should choose one.

> Which package should we use between libode-dev and libode0-dev? They
> both provide /usr/lib/libode.a without being in conflict.

This problem still remains.
--
I WILL NOT TEACH OTHERS TO FLY
I WILL NOT TEACH OTHERS TO FLY
I WILL NOT TEACH OTHERS TO FLY
-+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 9F05
 
Old 02-15-2009, 09:11 PM
Adeodato Simó
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

* Julien Cristau [Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:55:31 +0100]:

> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 22:16 +0100, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> > I uploaded libode 0.11 in experimental. Can you please, test it with
> > your package and adjust your build dependency in order to able to build
> > it with libode-dev or libode0-dev.

> What's the point of changing the -dev package name, if you're not
> keeping the old one around? This seems to cause more pain for no
> reason.

I assume it's to avoid the perceived uglyness of having libode1 go
together with libode0-dev.

Gonéri, it is much prefered by the release team that library transitions
don't imply *sourceful* uploads of all rdependant packages. We only seem
to have two packages having a versioned build-dependency on libode0-dev,
so I think that's manageable following the (standard) procedure that
follows.

I'd like to suggest ithat you upload again to experimental, but having
libode-dev Provide: libode0-dev. Then you ask reverse dependencies for
feedback, in particular if they can be recompiled without any source
change and continue to work. If that's the case, we keep the Provides
when uploading to unstable, and do binNMUs. Only if *all* reverse
dependencies need source changes to compile with the new version it'd be
okay to drop the Provides when uploading to unstable.

Once the transition is done (and only then), you can submit bugs at
non-RC severity against your reverse dependencies asking for a change
libode0-dev -> libode-dev in their Build-Dependencies, and you can drop
the provides once all bugs are fixed *and migrated to testing*.

Does this sound doable to you?

Also, it would be really nice if you could mail -release to get a spot
for this transition, like everybody else. From a quick look it's quite
an isolated transition, so it should be able to get the "go" very soon.

Thanks in advance,

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

Listening to: Pastora - Invasión


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-15-2009, 09:14 PM
Adeodato Simó
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

Oh, and thanks for taking the initiative to contact your reverse
dependencies, it's appreciated.

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

A hacker does for love what other would not do for money.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-15-2009, 09:27 PM
Gonéri Le Bouder
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:58:37PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO En cette soirée bien amorcée du dimanche 15 février 2009, vers
> 22:49, je disais:
>

> After a second read, maybe this should be "libode-dev | libode0-dev". I
> thought that we should choose one.
That's was the idea.

> > Which package should we use between libode-dev and libode0-dev? They
> > both provide /usr/lib/libode.a without being in conflict.
> This problem still remains.
Yes, sadly you're right. I'll fix that.

Best regards,

Gonéri
 
Old 02-15-2009, 09:36 PM
Gonéri Le Bouder
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:55:31PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 22:16 +0100, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> > I uploaded libode 0.11 in experimental. Can you please, test it with
> > your package and adjust your build dependency in order to able to build
> > it with libode-dev or libode0-dev.
>
> What's the point of changing the -dev package name, if you're not
> keeping the old one around? This seems to cause more pain for no
> reason.

Upstream bumped the soname, and to be consistent with that I had to
change the -dev package name. I decide to drop the version from the -dev
package.

Cheers,

Gonéri
 
Old 02-15-2009, 10:34 PM
Gonéri Le Bouder
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:11:04PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:

> I'd like to suggest ithat you upload again to experimental, but having
> libode-dev Provide: libode0-dev. Then you ask reverse dependencies for
> feedback, in particular if they can be recompiled without any source
> change and continue to work. If that's the case, we keep the Provides
> when uploading to unstable, and do binNMUs. Only if *all* reverse
> dependencies need source changes to compile with the new version it'd be
> okay to drop the Provides when uploading to unstable.
>
> Once the transition is done (and only then), you can submit bugs at
> non-RC severity against your reverse dependencies asking for a change
> libode0-dev -> libode-dev in their Build-Dependencies, and you can drop
> the provides once all bugs are fixed *and migrated to testing*.
>
> Does this sound doable to you?
ok, it's a much better plan. I added the Provides: in freshly uploaded
ode 0.11-3.

> Also, it would be really nice if you could mail -release to get a spot
> for this transition, like everybody else. From a quick look it's quite
> an isolated transition, so it should be able to get the "go" very soon.
Fine,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and sorry for the noise.

Best regardsn

Gonéri
 
Old 02-17-2009, 12:12 AM
Adeodato Simó
 
Default ode 0.11 transition

* Gonéri Le Bouder [Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:34:51 +0100]:

> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:11:04PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:

> > I'd like to suggest ithat you upload again to experimental, but having
> > libode-dev Provide: libode0-dev. Then you ask reverse dependencies for
> > feedback, in particular if they can be recompiled without any source
> > change and continue to work. If that's the case, we keep the Provides
> > when uploading to unstable, and do binNMUs. Only if *all* reverse
> > dependencies need source changes to compile with the new version it'd be
> > okay to drop the Provides when uploading to unstable.

> > Once the transition is done (and only then), you can submit bugs at
> > non-RC severity against your reverse dependencies asking for a change
> > libode0-dev -> libode-dev in their Build-Dependencies, and you can drop
> > the provides once all bugs are fixed *and migrated to testing*.

> > Does this sound doable to you?

> ok, it's a much better plan. I added the Provides: in freshly uploaded
> ode 0.11-3.

Great, thank you.

> > Also, it would be really nice if you could mail -release to get a spot
> > for this transition, like everybody else. From a quick look it's quite
> > an isolated transition, so it should be able to get the "go" very soon.
> Fine,

> Thank you for your valuable feedback and sorry for the noise.

No apology needed, thanks for your cooperation!

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

The first step on the road to wisdom is the admission of ignorance. The
second step is realizing that you don't have to blab it to the world.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org