[SCM] drumkv1/master: Split package (4)

[James Cowgill]

Hi,

On 27/09/16 09:47, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> On 2016-09-27 10:28, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>>>> What is the benefit of doing this over 'drumkv1-common (=
>>>>>> ${binary:Version})?
>>>>
>>>> it's the usual pattern to cater for binNMUs.
>> I believe it is the _old_ pattern.
> 
> aha. didn't know this.
> what is the _new_ pattern then?

https://wiki.debian.org/binNMU

I'm fairly certain (= ${binary:Version}) is the right thing to use here
(both packages are arch:any).

>> And I believe that is the reason for 
>> the question (you didn't answer the comparative part of the question).
> 
> applying a pattern helps in sparing some brain cycles.
> not having to think was the main benefit of the chosen solution over any
> other one (to answer the comparative part of the question).
> 
> but of course not having to think comes has some limitations, so
> patterns need to be re-evaluated ever so often.
> 
> or to put otherwise: what is the drawback of my pattern compared so a
> simple 'drumkv1-common (= ${binary:Version})'.

Your method attaches an ABI guarantee stating that the package won't
break the ABI of libdrumkv1.so as long as the upstream version stays the
same.

Eg if you broke the ABI in a patch in version 0.7.6-2, the new
drumkv1-common would still satisfy the dependency of the old drumkv1.

James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20160927/eb36fe0e/attachment-0001.sig>