On 7 August 2017 at 09:00, Antonio Ospite wrote:
| On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:37:39 +1200 Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz>
| wrote:
| > Is there something wrong with libgsl23 2.4+dfsg-4? nco which depends on
| > libgsl23 and {inkscape, qgis} which depend on libgsl2 are not
| > coinstallable. Should libgsl23 have libgsl2 in its "Replaces:"? I do not
| > understand, but I suspect that something is wrong.
| >
|
| IMHO "Replaces" is not a good solution short-term:
|
| libgsl2 provides API version 19
| libgsl23 provides API version 23
|
| Software depending on libgsl2 might not be ready for API version 23.
|
| The problem is that libgsl23 depends on libgslcblas0 but the
| latter rightfully conflicts with libgsl2 because both packages ship
| libgslcblas.so.0
Right. Bummer. Long-term it is of course correct to split libgslcblas.so.0
out as I have done now.
| This makes libgsl2 and libgsl23 not co-installable, which makes
| the package name change a little less useful.
|
| A possible solution could be to release a last libgsl2 version (maybe
| 2.4 +dfsg-2.1 ?) which does not ship libgslcblas.so.0 but instead
| depends on the libgslcblas0 package, also restricting the conflict in
| libgslcblas0 to libgsl2 versions *preceding* that version.
We can't do it for gsl 2.4 because that already had the missing symbols
issue.
We can't do a rebuild of the _previous_ GSL either (unless we do ugly fudging
with epochs and whatnot).
| Long-term there could be a transition to libgsl23 for all the packages
| which depend on libgsl2, but I don't know how that is triggered.
We may need one. But I am not familiar with the process either.
Dirk
| Just my 2c.
|
| Ciao ciao,
| Antonio
|
| --
| Antonio Ospite
| https://ao2.it
| https://twitter.com/ao2it
|
| A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
| See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
| Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
