sdlgfx 2.0.25

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2013/12/22 Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco at yahoo.it>:
>> Il Domenica 22 Dicembre 2013 0:19, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> > 2013/12/21 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>:
>>>>  I can help of course, I'm trying to get more and more involved in
>> debian (I'm a DM since some months now, but I started contributing more than
>> one year ago in the debian alioth gits)
>>>>
>>>>  I'll be glad to help, altough sometimes I still make mistakes (the
>> .24 wasn't uploaded because the ABI/API changed and nobody bumped the
>> soname...
>>>>
>>>>  I pushed everything on alioth!
>>>
>>>  OK, thanks, I will review it.
>>
>> So I reviewed it and pushed the changes, which is mostly to squash the
>> changelog of .24 and .25 together and minor packaging changes which
>> probably are not important (didn't remember to commit separately,
>> sorry).
>>
>
> Wonderful! That was in my plans, but I was too lazy to to it :)

So is it OK to go for you, other than waiting for the transition?


>> I think that the bump in SONAME will bring the following complications:
>>
>> - the binary .deb has a new name, thus has to go through the FTP
>> master's NEW queue (and can take weeks/months)
>>
>> - all reverse-depends will have to be recompiled against the new
>> version (probably binNMU is enough, but since there are ~30 or so I
>> guess that some of them will fail to compile and complicate the
>> transition)
>>
>> - I think that a transition should be opened with Release Managers,
>> the number of packages is high enough
>>
>> I wonder if we can do something like the following to avoid at least
>> the 1st step:
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=549110
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=54;filename=sdlgfx-2.0.20-1.1-nmu.diff;att=1;bug=549110
>
> For this part I don't know the best solution honestly...
> I tried the possible to avoid the new queue stall, but maybe since this is an API/ABI change is good to change everything and to have a package name coherent with the new sdl API/ABI.
>
> for the transition yes, I think we should open a transition and ask for binNMU, I hope everything will go smoothless, since the changes weren't so deep, at least in the API (some internal function were removed, and some bug fixed, nothing more if I remember correctly)

OK, so please speak with Release Managers and keep this list in copy
so we can chime in if necessary, and do the actual uploads.


> (I'll look for sdl2 soon I hope)

OK, let me know when it's ready to review.  This is less problematic
and we can upload once it's ready, since we don't have to care about
API/ABI changes.

Just try to keep things as close as possible to the other libsdl2*
packages so everybody can treat all the modules as having the same
structure and config, and we can apply changes to packaging widely,
it's easier to understand and less error-prone.  If there are things
that you don't like and can be improved in other modules they should
be fixed in them as well, and not only improve the gfx module.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>