On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:46:02 +0100, Tino Didriksen wrote: > On 3 February 2016 at 02:57, Andreas Beckmann <a...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:00:44 +0000 Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > lttoolbox (3.3.2~r61000-3.1) unstable; urgency=medium > > > . > > > * Non-maintainer upload. > > > * Rename library packages for g++5 ABI transition (closes: 791195). > > > > This change was recently reverted and I'm not convinced that this was a > > good idea. > > > > That was my doing, on the basis that the transition should never have > happened. > > Because I wasn't properly subscribed to this bug (due to using my mail@ > address which procmail can't handle), I never knew the transition was > pushed through against my wishes, until I went to update lttoolbox to a > newer release. > > There are only 2 other packages that depend on lttoolbox: apertium and > apertium-lex-tools, and I maintain those as well. All 3 are part of the > same upstream project, and are updated together if there are breaking > changes. > > And because lttoolbox 3.3 was not even in testing at the time, nothing > outside my control could have built up dependencies on it, and indeed > nothing has. > > The v5 transition was entirely unnecessary for this package, and I very > strongly want it gone. > You haven't given a single good reason to revert the change. Maybe you would have preferred it didn't, but you're coming 6 months late to that party.
Cheers, Julien