[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Bug#510845: mpi-defaults: FTBFS/not available on alpha

[Manuel Prinz]

Am Sonntag, den 15.03.2009, 12:23 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó:
> There is an unfortunate problem with it, though: you can’t use an
> architecture restriction like [arch1 !arch2] in Build-Depends. That
> is, you can’t mix ! and non-!; if you stop to think about it, it
> doesn’t make sense.
> 
> Just removing “alpha” completely from the Build-Depends line will just
> do the right thing as far as I can see. Could you make another upload?

Should have noticed myself, rookie mistake! Sure, will upload again.
Thanks for spotting this!

> Hm. Well, a warning is one thing, and the applications not working is
> another. libopenmpi1 is in lenny, with packages depending on it. Partial
> upgrades ought to work, so if applications stop working, seems like a
> SONAME bump is in order. If it’s only a warning, it can be fixed with
> Bin-NMUs, but it should be assessed with care.

As for Lenny, we're good. Lenny has a 1.2 series version, which is fine
with all software depending on it as of now. The breakage is only in the
1.3 series which is in Sid.

> I guess that when you say, “Upstream [...] will be ABI compatible
> starting from 1.3.2”, you mean that they don’t intend to bump the SONAME
> themselves for the breakage introduced earlier? That’d be a good start
> if you want to show you care about ABI compatibility...

I'm in contact with upstrean about that. The current situation is that
1.3 has the same SONAME as 1.2, though it should have been bumped. I'll
hope they'll bump the SONAME in 1.3.1 but that is not settled yet, as I
understand. I generally think that uploading 1.3.1 would be desireable
since it includes quite a few fixes and would make most of our current
patches obsolete, but they have no idea of a release date yet, so I'll
try to fix 1.3 for now.

I'll let you know how discussions with upstream went.

> Finally, what’s this business about maintainers not being happy about
> Bin-NMUs of their packages?

Not sure if this was rethorical question or if you'd like to have more
information on that.

Best regards
Manuel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-openmpi-maintainers/attachments/20090315/9b106732/attachment-0001.pgp