On 19 November 2009 at 01:45, Sune Vuorela wrote: | On Wednesday 18 November 2009 23:13:44 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > Patrick, | > | > I am sorry about the breakage in mumble. I had coordinated the NMU I made | > for protobuf 2.2 with Iustin who had suggested that I contact | > debian-release. | > | > Nobody at the Debian release lists followed up on my posts. Nobody | > followed up when I pointed out that the upstream soname of protobuf 2.2 is | > still 4.0.0. I tried to be minimally invasive with my NMU and did | > therefore not raise the soname. | | This is just wrong and broken library maintenance, no matter what excuses you | try to use. | | The minimal things to do when packaging a new upstream version of a library is | to check wether it breaks the ABI or not, and if yes, then act appropriately. | | So how did you check the ABI?
I ran it against our new in-progress RProtoBuf binding, and it broke. I ran the protobud example _and it ran_ albeit spewing out a message. I contact debian-release. I trusted upstream with the libtool 4.0.0 setting. So I made mistake, as did the maintainer (who has been sitting on a new upstream for three months and a bugreport about it for a months) and so has upstream as we now know. Do we really gain anything by engaging in pissing matches? | > I am not sure what the best way forward is. Given that mumble is the only | > user of protobuf, could you just rebuild based on the protobuf? That is | > probably quicker than a new upload, NEW queue, required rebuild, ... and | > avoids all hazzles regarding soname conflicts if we move to 5 now and | > Google later claims 5. | | protobuf is a library also used for many homemade applications that aren't in | debian (yet?) and you also break these this way. | | You can also try to just rename the package as a minimum, but unfriendly to | the rest of debian (And users of the library not in debian). That's not solution. | Using "avoiding NEW" to justify this is just plain wrong. I didn't suggest that. I just pointed out the obvious that the mumble team can rebuild RIGHT NOW which gets a fix to their users faster than waitning for 2.2.0a with a new major soname. | To quote the /topic of the #debian-release channel: | | Breaks for SONAME changes instead of package renames? Think again! Very Cool. Now why don't you join the debian-release list and reply to my requests for help before breakage occurs rather than do your grandstanding afterwards? Dirk | | </rant> | | /Sune | | -- | Man, how may I upload from the sendmail over the BIOS secret code? | | You need to rename a gadget for inserting the ethernet connection on the mail | of a processor on a wordprocessor. -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
