| Steve Langasek 2005-11-29, 7:51 am |
| On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> Hi Ming, Steve, others,
> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 11:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> For the first cxx transition during Breezy development, I renamed
> libatlas-cpp-0.5 to libatlas-cpp-0.5c2 because this was our plan. Every
> package without c102 (from old ABI changes) will get c2 and the other library
> packages with a c102 suffix, the c102 will be removed.
> For Debian there was another decision, and it's in the responsibilty of the
> Debian package maintainer, if he wants to rename or not. (If I recall the
> mail correctly).
Absolutely not. Renaming of library packages on ABI change is mandatory in
Debian, just as it was for Ubuntu.
Anyway, the fact that there was never a c102 version of libatlas-cpp-0.6 in
Debian or Ubuntu certainly cuts down on the chances of there being an
incompatible libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2 package in the wild. So it's not
*crucial* that this package be named -0.6-0c2a, but it would be nice to not
have gratuitous inter-distro incompatibilities when they can be avoided.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
|