On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:57:56PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > If there are no incompatible API changes, wouldn't it be more > > straightforward to continue building libicu34-dev from the icu > > source and schedule binNMUs for the reverse-deps instead of renaming > > it to libicu36-dev and requiring editing of build-deps?
> Well, there are lots of new APIs. Anyway, I feel like it would be > better to have the name be neutral (like libicu-dev) if we are going > to drop the soname from the -dev package rather than having it be > called libicu34-dev which seems somehow misleading. There are also > some deprecated interfaces from 3.4, so it is still my inclination to > go ahead and rename the -dev package and have the new -dev package > conflict with the old one. Ok. Since the 3.4 interfaces are still present, even if deprecated, perhaps a Provides: libicu34-dev might still be appropriate? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]