[Pkg-silc-devel] Updating SILC Toolkit to 1.0.2

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Fri May 25 23:01:23 UTC 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri 2007-05-25 18:32:59 -0400, stesie at brokenpipe.de wrote:

> even though the package is named `libsilc-1.0-2' we ship the rather
> old version 0.9.12.  However I need the 1.0 api for kopete_silc as
> well as `Silc Improved', since both make use of the SilcMime-API
> which has been introduced with 1.0 ...

Is this a duplication of the work done on bug 413790?

 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413790

We should make sure that the debian bugtracker knows about things like
this if possible, because not everyone knows about the pkg-silc-devel
list yet, while the bug tracker is universal.

Michael C. Schultheiss recently said on this list that he doesn't mind
if folks move on with the packaging for silc-toolkit without him,
since he's busy at the moment.

I've already said that my preference is for repackaging
silc-{toolkit,client,server} from scratch using dh_make, since that
should make the packages easier to maintain.

It's not clear to me how the library version numbers map to the
upstream tarballs, and how those numbers map to the debian package
versions.  if someone who gets this better than me could explain, i'd
be very grateful!

my impression was that upstream 0.9.12 does indeed export version 1.0
symbols already.

Perhaps we need a plan about how we're going to handle the version
numbering of the packages and the library?  One that follow's Jérémy's
link here would be nice:

 http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html

my $0.02,

 --dkg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFGV2rAiXTlFKVLY2URAh1YAJ4/vgCMJLJmaroLMT4yFQ7txQXUSQCgnisH
wjb36X3+pZlw+q9FotpB55c=
=qWzR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Pkg-silc-devel mailing list