Hi Abou, On 18-02-2023 12:17, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
On Thu, 2021-12-30 at 22:30 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:Maybe we should move the fp-units-$bar packages to the library section too and embed the ABI version into the package name.I like that idea. Let's go that way....I think that the best place for /fp-units-*/ is /libdevel/ as they are very similar to the /foo-dev/ packages.I don't think fp-unit-* make sense in the lib section.
Ack.
what do you think? Will this solve the issue with regards to the release team script, or it handle only /lib/ section in that particular way?
The Release Team scripts don't care about the section, they look at installability. But if we compare the units to C libraries, we normally asks library maintainers to *not* version the dev packages, because then all reverse build dependencies need an update when the SONAME gets bumped, making the transition process very labor-some.
What we want to achieve here is a way to ensure packages are rebuild (semi) automatically when the units require it. But we *also* want to come up with a way that doesn't require changes in the reverse dependencies at the same time. Consider also that adding new binary packages require a trip through NEW. Would it make sense that every unit provides a virtual abi package, which get embedded in the dependencies during build time, such that when a unit bumps the virtual abi, the release team tools notice and rebuilds can be triggered? Or is that what we already more or less do?
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
