[Pkg-kde-extras] Lensfun-0.2.4

[Mark Purcell]

On Sunday 11 October 2009 02:18:52 Pascal de Bruijn wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Pascal,

> I just mailed with Andrew Zabolotny, the author of LensFun. He's getting
> current svn in shape for release as 0.2.4.

I see they have released in the last couple of days.

> The new release of course has to be repackaged. No major changes as far
> as I know...
> 
> I think we can drop most if not all patches for 0.2.4.

Excellent.

What about the remaining two in debian.svn.org?
90-lensfun-db-update-rel-to-svn65.dpatch  
91-lensfun-db-update-svn65-to-pmjdebruijn.dpatch

They don't apply cleanly to 0.2.4.

> However, there are some packaging issues I'm not entirely sure of...
> 
> The library is now called liblensfun0, I'm assuming that will remain the
> same as long as the API is unchanged. It will only need to be renamed to
> liblensfun1 if the API has changed, right?

Yes.  Have a look at the Debian library packing guide:
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html

> Though there are some references to 0.2.3, in the debian package files:
> 
> rules:DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_ALL := -- -v0.2.3
> liblensfun0.symbols: lf_lens_new at Base 0.2.3

My understanding is that the symbols file only details the first version that 
specific symbols appear.  Thus the correct answer is to leave the symbols file 
at 0.2.3.

> The rules file is easily adapted, but how would I regenerate the symbols
> file?

I don't think you need to change the rules file as 0.2.3 and 0.2.4 are binary 
compatible, ie you can leave it at 0.2.3.

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-extras/attachments/20091016/dbb75368/attachment.pgp>