Am Sonntag, den 15.03.2009, 16:14 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó: > Indeed, bumping the SONAME in 1.3.1 would be great if indeed ABI > compatibility has been broken. Thanks for pursuing this.
Upstream discusses the plans for future releases and dealing with SONAMEs on their development list. We'll see where they end up, there is no definite plan yet. So, to get the issue fixed, my current plan is as follows: 1.) Fix the build issues. 2.) Fake the SONAME change by changing the library package name. [*] 3.) Patch and build all dependant software. 4.) File bugs for all packages, including patches. 5.) NMU if no response in a reasonable time frame. I do not know if this plan is reasonable and the release-team is OK with it. I will of course let them know about this before I take any action. (Or is it OK to coordinate just with you?) Feedback is welcome and appreciated, since this is the first time I need to do that. Another option would be to upload to experimental, so the other maintainers can test the packages theirselfs. Not sure if this is reasonable but might result in less breakage since uploads to unstable could be coordinated. Best regards Manuel [*] The reason is that upstream does not yet know how (and if) they will bump the SONAME, so I think it's best to stay with it as is, so user-compiled software against 1.3 still runs.
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
