<div dir="ltr">Hi,<br><br>Thank you for this detailed reply!<br><br>On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Osamu Aoki <<a href="mailto:osamu@debian.org" target="_blank">osamu@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Hi,<br>><br>
> I am no expert on this topic but let me try my best and also share this<br>
> with other DDs for pkg-ime.<br>><br>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 07:35:06PM -0400, Guo Yixuan wrote:<br>> ...<br>> > I just have a question: in the so-version bump of librime,<br>><br>> It was done by aron in git repo with pre-release version: librime0 -> librime1<br>
><br>> Read basics here:<br>> <a href="https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-updates" target="_blank">https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-updates</a><br>
><br>
> Since this is C++ based library, symbols support can be skipped.<br>><br>> > librime-dev is renamed to librime1-dev,<br>><br>> So you wanted to do this slightly different from what Aron did. This is<br>
> certainly OK to do this.<br>><br>> Versioned -dev package can be made but unless you plan to keep both<br>> librime0 and librime1 in the same archive and build-able. I do not see<br>> much reason to make this extra complication.<div>
<br></div><div>Yes, we don't seem to have enough motivation for versioned -dev package name. Therefore, I was considering to revert to versionless -dev package name.</div><div><br>
> Anyway, rules are here:<br>> <a href="https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-dev" target="_blank">https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-dev</a><br>
><br>> (If you really wish to have both ABI packages in the archive, you need<br>
> to have source package to be versioned to keep them happy. This kind of<br>> situation exist only for some select class of libraries. Otherwise,<br>> your action only buys you to have minor future flexibility, as I<br>
> understand.)</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think we have any reason to keep multiple version of source packages here.</div><div><br>> Considering small numbers of programs depending on librime* library, I<br>
> would rather keep it simple by having librime-dev for all so name<br>> versions as Aron. I explained this case in my maint-guide:<br>
> <a href="https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/advanced.en.html#library" target="_blank">https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/advanced.en.html#library</a><br>> <a href="https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/advanced.en.html#multiarch" target="_blank">https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/advanced.en.html#multiarch</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Yes, this is reasonable.</div><div><div><br></div><div>> > so I think it's necessary to add conflicts/replaces/provides[1].<br>><br>> This ensures only one package providing librime-dev is installed.<br>
> So good for your plan.<br>><br>> > Is this the usual and correct way of handling a so-version bump?<br>
><br>> Important is that this upload induced library transition.<br>> Please read <a href="https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions" target="_blank">https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions</a><br>
> and follow.<br>
><br>> You need to send mail to <a href="mailto:debian-release@lists.debian.org" target="_blank">debian-release@lists.debian.org</a> using reportbug<br>> with proper ben file.<br>><br>> The example mail as follows in the basic transition mail example is for<br>
> packaging style using librime-dev like -dev package.<br>> <a href="https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/02/msg00088.html" target="_blank">https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/02/msg00088.html</a><br>
> Example of transition.<br>
> <a href="https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgpac3.html" target="_blank">https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgpac3.html</a><br>><br>> If you create versioned -dev package like you proposed, library<br>
> transition comes with extra-flexibility. If you see<br>
> <a href="https://release.debian.org/transitions/" target="_blank">https://release.debian.org/transitions/</a> , transitions marked with auto-*<br>> are ones with versioned -dev packages. Example transition.<br>> <a href="https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-sword.html" target="_blank">https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-sword.html</a> Anyway, I am<br>
> not so familiar with auto transition thing. That is required for major<br>> library. You may need to get some external help (debian-mentor?) if you<br>> wish to go along this route.<br>><br>> Good luck,<br>
><br>> Osamu<br>><br>> > [1]<br>> > <a href="http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ime/librime.git;a=commitdiff;h=462d9a54b1491e5e340d110fdde027834c6bc127" target="_blank">http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ime/librime.git;a=commitdiff;h=462d9a54b1491e5e340d110fdde027834c6bc127</a><br>
<br>So, as I understand, versioned -dev (librime1-dev) has only one benefit of automatic transition, while the versionless approach is more easy and suitable for small-scale libraries (such as our librime). (I also have little experience in shared libs however...) Let's wait a moment to see Aron's comment on this issue.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(By the way, I encountered an annoying problem of librime 1.1, and am debugging/trying to work with the upstream. Thus I think it's not necessary to upload it right now.)</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br></div><div>GUO Yixuan<br><div class="gmail_extra">
</div></div></div></div>