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

[Luca Boccassi]

On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 15:53 +0200, Santiago wrote:
> El 26/06/17 a las 07:09, Christian Ehrhardt escribió:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi at gmail
> > .com> wrote:
> > 
> >     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
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah the reason the deps are "so low" is because that is the lowest
> > ABI level
> > they were added.
> > Since the name is now in the pkg that is obiously useless as you
> > pointed out,
> > but then it is not "wrong" either.
> > So we might as well keep it as-is - or is there a drawback we
> > overlook.
> 
> None that I am aware of, but I am not expert in packaging such rich
> libraries though.
> I would just prefer some consistency with available SONAME and the
> version of binary package that provides the symbols. And this ABI/API
> instability and SONAME bumping is confusing, at least for me.
> 
> >     Christian what was it? I forgot already!
> > 
> > 
> > The thought was - that continuing to carry symbols files will give
> > us
> > confidence that e.g. adding code to d/p/* will not mess up our
> > symbols without
> > us noticing it.
> > They are updated on merges of major versions but should not change
> > at any other
> > time.
> 
> Anyway, no other comments. Again, thanks for your work.

Thanks for the upload!

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/20170628/2c59f74a/attachment.sig>