On 23/08/15 16:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 23-08-15 16:59, Simon McVittie wrote: >> The "SONAME bump" option was only really meant to be taken if the library >> had an upstream SONAME bump pending anyway (for instance icu and boost >> went this route). If there is not a SONAME change already in the pipeline, >> you should do the "v5" rename instead. My NMUs of gtkmm2.4, gtkmm3.0, >> atlas-cpp, bullet etc. should make a reasonable template for how this works. > > I have the packaging for the libstxll v5 rename mostly ready in my local > git, I can push this to Alioth and/or NMU it to DELAYED/2 if you want.
Regardless of whether you NMU, please compare what you have done with the Ubuntu patch at <http://patches.ubuntu.com/libs/libstxxl/libstxxl_1.4.1-1ubuntu1.patch> (you'll probably find it ended up identical), and send a diff against current unstable to this bug. If you've done the work already, and if all the library build-deps either don't need a transition or have already started theirs, then I would personally say you might as well NMU to an appropriate DELAYED queue. This overall transition has broken unstable for 3 weeks already, during which lots of packages are either uninstallable or non-functional, and basically no C++ can migrate to testing; the sooner we can get through it and have our distribution back, the better. S -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers