Bug#706001: libsfml2 is still in new

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hello!

On 10/16/2013 07:54 AM, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>> On Sun, 2013-10-13 at 03:40 +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> For some reason libsfml2 is still in new. It seems there was a new
>>> version uploaded to the archive.
>>>
>>> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/libsfml_2.1+dfsg-2.html

That's because the package contains new binary components, i.e.
the source package creates additional binary packages as compared
to the version of libsfml currently in Debian.

>>> from dfsg-1 to dfsg-2.
>>>
>>> Also the uploaded date has changed to 6th Oct 2013.
>>
>> Yes I made some improvements to the package and it was re-uploaded. You
>> can see all the changes in the git repo here:
>>  http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/libsfml.git
> 
> Saw your sponsor make a few changelog fixes on the 7th as well
> 
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/libsfml.git

I made these changes and James committed them, correct. I'm
a bit of an OCD-type when it comes to changelogs :).

>>> Also see/saw the reason why he has set the binaries to be uploaded to
>>> experimental as well.
>>>
>>> From http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=706001#15
>>>
>>> "I've done some work on packaging SFML 2.1 (since i needed it done
>>> anyway). I've tried to follow the debian policies as much as possible so
>>> maybe this could be included in debian. I've only set the distribution
>>> to experimental since this would probably break the libcsfml and
>>> python-sfml packages which still use SFML 1.6. "
>>>
>>> I do hope that both libsfml 1.6 and libsfml2 can exist on one machine.
>>
>> The library packages (eg libsfml-audio1.6 and libsfml-audio2) can
>> coexist, although the 1.6 packages will eventually disappear from the
>> archive.
>> However the -dev package containing the headers will not be able to
>> coexist since the headers from 1.6 and 2.1 have the same filenames. This
>> is why an upload to unstable will break libcsfml and python-sfml if they
>> get rebuilt.

Correct. -dev-packages usually have the same name for any package
version while the actual library packages have the API version
or SO version appended as a single digit to the name of the
library package.

> I have also explicitly used your sponsorer's email id so he can also
> share with us when he would be committing libsfml2 to the archive (or
> is the ball in ftp-master's hands now ? )

When a package is in NEW, it's solely in the hands of the FTP masters.
There is nothing that you can do, neither as a sponsor nor as a
sponsoree. You have to wait for the package to be accepted or
rejected, then take the appropriate actions.

Cheers,

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz at debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913