[Pkg-ime-devel] libcangjie and pycangjie

Anthony Wong anthony.wong at ubuntu.com
Mon Feb 10 16:45:53 UTC 2014

On 7 February 2014 20:44, Osamu Aoki <osamu_aoki_home at nifty.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 06:49:25PM +0000, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> > binary:libcangjie2-dev is NEW.
> > binary:libcangjie2-dev-tools is NEW.
> > binary:libcangjie2-dbg is NEW.
> > binary:libcangjie2-data is NEW.
> > binary:libcangjie2 is NEW.
> This is reminder of serious bugs.
>  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736191
>  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736193
> Apparently, there were some imajor ABI change or something which lead
> you to pick different package names for all subpackages.
> libcangjie2-dev-tools and libcangjie2-data seems very strange,  The same
> goes to -dev.  I understand libcangjie2 and libcangjie2-dbg since they
> may need to coexist with libcangjie and libcangjie-dbg.
> Anyway, this bug is holding these packages in unstable.
> This is a reminder.
> Regards,
> Osamu

Hi Osamu,

Thanks for the reminder! I haven't dealt with these two bugs earlier due to
the Chinese New Year holiday and I was just back.

As what you said, libcangjie2 is picked due to ABI change, it is basically
rewrite of previous version. For the data package, I think it doesn't
matter much which name to use so I may keep the current one. For
libcangjie2-dev{-tools}, I had given it a second thought as well after
receiving the bug reports. Do you suggest it is better to use the original
libcangjie-dev name instead? If you agree I am happy to make the change.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ime-devel/attachments/20140211/6bf5c3dc/attachment.html>

More information about the Pkg-ime-devel mailing list