On Monday 26 May 2008 21:11:06 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> I've forward this e-mail to Will Nowak, who is in charge of the script
> which automates package building of Zumastor. He knows better than me.
> One thing he'd surely like to have is an RSS feed of the packages a
> PPA publishes (currently for Zumastor we are scraping).

This is something that is on the radar for future work this year. There are
no concrete plans yet, but watch this space.

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users

On 2008-05-28 00:29:57 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> Quoting Michael Bienia <michael@vorlon.ping.de>:
>
> > On 2008-05-26 21:59:02 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> >> Not necessarily. If I build for Gutsy but the library breaks ABI
> >> compatibility in Hardy, the Gutsy binary won't work in Hardy (and of
> >> course the Hardy binary won't work on Gutsy, either).
> >
> > If the ABI of a library changes then it must get a new package name to
> > make sure that upgrades work. Without the renaming you would get the
> > problem you describe.
> >
> > If you try to install in such case the deb from Gutsy on Hardy, it will
> > fail due to unmet/broken dependencies.
>
> You are only partially right. If the ABI changes you should increase
> the soversion, not rename the package. Changing the package name
> should only be done if upstream or the Debian package is so broken
> that increasing the soversion is impossible.

I was perhaps a little bit unprecise. As the soversion is usually included
in the package name, increasing the soversion leads also to a new
package name:
libfoo.so.1 gets packaged as libfoo1. After an ABI change the soversion
gets incremented to 2. The library is now called libfoo.so.2 which is
now packaged as libfoo2.

Michael

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:43:51PM +0300, Dan wrote:
> > It's not only about the archive topology, but mainly for packaging consistency.
> > If foo-bin works fine for gutsy and hardy why would you have to
> > rebuild it and in case it doesn't work as expected in a later series
> > the issue should be fixed and documented as a new version of the
>
> It would be useful to have a different binary for Hardy (even when the
> Gutsy binary works) in the cases when Hardy provides updated libraries
> that the package uses. Say libfoo1 is available both in Gutsy and
> Hardy, but Hardy also provides libfoo2. The source package may not
> care (it requires either libfoo1 | libfoo2). But the Gutsy .deb cannot
> depend on libfoo2 (only libfoo1 is available on Gutsy), while the
> Hardy .deb can. So two .deb's would be very beneficial.

You should bring this up in the Ubuntu community; the issue above is
basically us enforcing their policy (very simplistically, no bin-NMUs).
--
Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3376 0125

--
launchpad-users mailing list
launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users