[Pkg-ime-devel] Bug#750623: Bug#750623: What is the hold-up of uploadin new package

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:01:49PM -0400, GUO Yixuan wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 08:27:12PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 01:45:32AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 1:33 AM, GUO Yixuan <culu.gyx at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm just waiting for a confirmation on the librime-dev => librime1-dev
> > > > renaming, from Aron, as we discussed in a previous thread. [1]
> > > >
> > > 
> > > As said before, I don't have strong opinion on either way.
> > 
> > My popsition is that you have not presented enough reason to do this.
> > So do not do this.
> 
> I remember one possible reason: librime 1.0 breaks some ABI and API
> compatibility, 

Yes.  Thus you need to change librime0 to librime1 etc.

> so we should change the -dev package name. [1][2]

No.  Your reference does not say so.

This is only needed if you are having massive dependency and transition
library in complicated arrangement which you seem not to chase.

KISS (Keep it simple and S***) is the reason why I said no.  (I am not
saying your method break things)

As long as all dependency packages are binNMUed using the standard
procedure, the same librime-dev is sufficient and simple.

Let's review what your reference say:

> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/TransitionBestPractices

The first reminder is:

If there's a backward-incompatible ABI change (binary incompatibility)
which prevents old programs from working with the new library: you need
to change the library soname, and you need to change the library package
name, but you usually should not change the -dev package name.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> [2] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#sonameapiabi
Hmmm... not therer but look at:
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id249952

1. -DEV package names

Package maintainer has two options when naming a shared library -DEV
package. 
...  This document is neutral on which method to deploy.

You did not present rationale to do extrastep with the second option.

I see 
librime1 (>= ${source:Version}), librime1 (<< ${source:Version}+1~)

This seems binNMU unsafe.  Please drop max version limitation.

Regards,

Osamu