David Paleino <da...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:35:34 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Andreas Metzler <ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote: >> > David Paleino <da...@debian.org> 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. [...] That is exactly what I try to say. By renaming from libgphoto2-2-dev to libgphoto2-dev _now_ instead of when the soname bump happens we are exchanging a sourceful uploads of rdeps *now* with a sourceful uploads of rdeps *later*. It is purely a timing change. (And if the soname bump never happened a unnecessary transition.) cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' _______________________________________________ Pkg-phototools-devel mailing list Pkg-phototools-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-phototools-devel