[Pkg-bluetooth-maintainers] Unnecessary renaming of development package

[Luk Claes]

Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> Hello Luk,

Hi Filippo

> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:19:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Hi bluez-libs maintainers
>>
>> The recent renaming of the development package from libbluetooth1-dev to
>> libbluetooth2-dev was not needed. It's also unfortunate that you made
>> package immediate RC buggy without a warning to the affected maintainers
>> (via the BTS at least).
> 
> maintainers of affected packages have been informed once libbluetooth2 hit
> unstable via mail to <package>@packages.debian.org (I can open relevant
> transition bugs if needed).

The best thing would have been if they were informed beforehand of the
upcoming transition... If you involved the Release Team back than, the
current situation could probably have been avoided. The reason why bugs
are preferred is like for all bugs that other people can help as they
can see the issue, send patches, comments ...

>> The renaming of the development package was not necessary as rebuilding
>> the packages against libbluetooth2 is enough (there was only an ABI
>> change, not a change in the API which in turn could need source changes
>> in the reverse dependencies).
>>
>> Due to renaming the development package the reverse dependencies are not
>> only instantly made RC buggy, but they are not fixable with binNMUs.
>> They all need source uploads... which obviously takes longer and makes
>> transitioning to testing in most cases more complex.
> 
> allright, this looks like a quite straight transition to me, anyway I've yet to
> see any reaction from maintainers except from gnokii/gammu ones.

Filing bugs might help...

>> Please in the future remind to communicate package renaming with all the
>> maintainers of reverse (build) dependencies and also inform the Release
>> Team if it involves more than a handful of packages.
> 
> Anyway, is this procedure documented somewhere? It doesn't seem like a good idea
> to have libbluetoothX-dev when soname of the included library is in fact Y, but
> perhaps I'm missing something.

Normally you shouldn't use libfooX-dev, you should use libfoo-dev
instead unless you have a good reason to use libfooX-dev. If one does
use libfooX-dev, one should at least have a time where libfooX-dev and
libfooY-dev are co-installable (both packages in unstable at the same
time), again unless you have a good reason not to do that.

The part about communicating with the Release Team for transitions is
included in all d-d-a mails from the Release Team AFAICS ...

Cheers

Luk

-- 
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bluetooth-maintainers/attachments/20060705/0ad8a5aa/signature-0001.pgp