[Pkg-clamav-devel] Uploading 0.98.7+dfsg-4

[Andreas Cadhalpun]

On 02.12.2015 23:43, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2015-11-30 15:46:57 [-0500], Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> Isn't it a bit early for that, as 0.99 hasn't been released?
>>
>> It doesn't hurt to do it early as long as you make it clear in the bug that 
>> it's not ready to go yet.  Getting a transition tracker up would help with 
>> preparing the transition.
> 
> My thinking exactly. Especially since we plan to upload it to
> stable/oldstable as well I think it is better to let the release team
> know early about the binNMUs in stable/oldstable.

As 0.99 has been released meanwhile, the point is moot anyway.

> During rebuilds I noticed that libclamunrar6 has a manual depend on
> libclamav6. Nothing changed in its source between 0.98.5 and 0.99-rc2
> (except for comments). The 0.99 source will produce a libclamunrar.so.7
> so the package should be named libclamunrar7.
> The .so.7 here is required because clamav itself looks for it :/
> |LibClamAV debug: searching for unrar, user-searchpath: /usr/lib
> |LibClamAV debug: searching for unrar: libclamunrar_iface.so.7.1.1 not found
> |LibClamAV debug: searching for unrar: libclamunrar_iface.so.7 not found
> |LibClamAV debug: searching for unrar: libclamunrar_iface.so not found
> |LibClamAV debug: searching for unrar: libclamunrar_iface.a not found
> |LibClamAV debug: Cannot dlopen libclamunrar_iface: file not found - unrar support unavailable
> 
> There is no libclamunrar_iface.so symlink around so it won't work
> otherwise. So we can either upload a libclamunrar7 soon to exp in order
> to clear the NEW queue or add a symlink "libclamunrar.so -> 
> libclamunrar_iface.so.6" in order to make it work. I somehow prefer the
> libclamunrar7 package due to the low amount of hackery involved :)
> Any second opinion on this?

Renaming to libclamunrar7 seems fine.
(Though it would be great if clamav wouldn't need this libclamunrar hack,
and instead could use e.g. libarchive for rar support.)

> This is what I planned for the bug against release.d.o (once we settled
> on libclamunrar):
> 
>  Subject: transition: clamav
>  Package: release.debian.org
>  User: release.debian.org at packages.debian.org
>  Usertags: transition
>  Severity: normal
>  
>  The upcoming version 0.99 of clamav will have a SONAME bump. Currently
>  we have 0.99-rc2 in experimental which built everywhere (mips is
>  Needs-Build at the time of writing).
>  We would plan to upload the final 0.99 into unstable once upstream
>  released it and we were allowed of doing so of course :)

That needs to be adapted a bit, since 0.99 is actually released now. ;)

>  The auto tracker is okay, all reverse dependencies are:
>  - libclamunrar
>  - c-icap-modules
>  - dansguardian
>  - havp
>  - python-clamav
>  
>  All packages build tested in sid-chroot against libclamav7 from
>  experimental.
> 
>  In the last c-icap-modules upload (which is part of testing and
>  unstable) the maintainer forgot to include the .so library that was built
>  against libclamav-dev and as such the package is listed as `unknown` in the
>  tracker (which is correct, no libclamav6 dependency). The bug #806757 has
>  been filled regarding this issue.
> 
>  libclamunrar needs a source upload because it is has a manual
>  dependency on libclamav6.
>  
>  After the upload to unstable we would plan to upload it to s-p-u and
                               ^
I'd inject 'has migrated to testing' here.

>  os-p-u so it can pop up in s/updates and os/update. This unfortunately
>  triggers a transition stable and oldstable.
                        ^
Here 'in' is missing.

Actually, I'm not sure how transitions in stable/old-stable are handled,
but I think they need a separate bug report.
Anyway, mentioning this here shouldn't hurt.

Otherwise this looks fine.

Best regards,
Andreas