[Pkg-dpdk-devel] Uploading DPDK 17.05 to experimental

[Luca Boccassi]

On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 18:52 +0200, Santiago wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> El 22/06/17 a las 19:30, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> > Hello Santiago,
> > 
> > We have prepared 17.05 and it's now ready for experimental.
> 
> Thanks for you work!
> 
> > All the library packages are new as they are now named after the
> > major
> > version since the ABI is too unstable (sort of like boost does), so
> > it
> > will hit the NEW queue and I cannot do the upload myself.
> > 
> > Also given the ABI instability, we agreed to only have each year's
> > LTS
> > release in unstable/testing, and upload the releases in-between to
> > experimental.
> 
> +1
> 
> > When you have time, could you please sponsor our upload?
> 
> Just built on my pbuilder. But I'd like to take a look at a slower
> pace.
> Hopefully, next Monday. In the meantime, just a quick note: 
> 
> If I am not wrong, versioned dependencies of runtime library packages
> are lower than their should. E.g. for librte-ethdev17.05_17.05-
> 1_amd64.deb: 
> 
>  Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14), librte-eal17.05 (>= 16.11), librte-
> mbuf17.05 (>= 16.04), librte-mempool17.05 (>= 16.07~rc1), librte-
> net17.05 (>= 16.11), librte-ring17.05 (>= 16.04)
> 
> This wouldn't be a real problem though, since the package names
> contain
> the ABI number. Buy anyway, symbols should be updated?

IMHO we could dispense with the symbols files entirely given the
library packages are now named after the ABI, but I think Christian had
a good reason for wanting them to stay. Technically they are correct as
those are the versions that introduced those APIs

Christian what was it? I forgot already!

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-dpdk-devel/attachments/20170623/9fc34a49/attachment.sig>