SDL2 2.0.4 is out!

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Hi,

(I guess that you're subscribed to the mailing list, but copying you
just in case).

2016-01-03 13:37 GMT+00:00 Gianfranco Costamagna
<costamagnagianfranco at yahoo.it>:
> Hi fellow pkg-sdl maintainers!
>
> You should be already aware of this, but SDL 2.0.4 is finally out!
>
> I took today the freedom to package it, and close 5 bugs against the package, as well, as fixing the copyright file,
> and do something else.
>
> * Fix copyright lintian warning.
> * Update copyright to new release.
> * New upstream release (Closes: #788688, #798265, #788540)
> - Drop patches use-default-screen and
> fix_joystick_misc_axes.diff, applied upstream.
> * Add Files-Excluded keyword to copyright file, allowing to
> import a new release with uscan command. (Closes: #804662)
> * Create new -doc package, and move examples into it (Closes: #739430).
>
>
> you can see a successful build here
> http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#experimental/libsdl2/2.0.4+dfsg1-1/buildlog

Nice, thanks for your work.


> Since I'm not actively part of pkg-sdl team, I put the target to UNRELEASED, and added a TODO in the changelog file
> (I also pushed everything to a new experimental branch, feel free to rework/drop if you don't like my work).
>
> Some issues are still open:
> - bump SONAME?

If it's API+ABI incompatible as you say below, we must do so, yes.


> - drop dbg package since it is useless now?

Since the mechanism is a bit new and people need to enable new
repositories, so I would keep it for a while.  There are no
reverse-deps on the -dbg package in Debian (one of the reasons to not
remove it), but maybe some private development relies on that.  We
shouldn't pay excessive attention to that in general, I think, but
waiting a few months until there's some agreement/coordination on
removing all -dbg packages does not hurt.


> I leave the points open for discussion, seems that the API changed a little bit, as well as the ABI, so I think a transition is needed.
>
> The packaging looks good to me, if we fix the above two points.
>
> I think after an experimental package accepted we will be able finally to see how many packages needs fix/rebuilds
> a quick look shows that the API changed, but just because of new additions, and just a few structs were renamed.
>
> So if we are lucky it should be a matter of binNMUs of reverse dependencies and some sed in the source code.
>
> What do you think about?

I didn't review the work (I was travelling in the last few weeks) and
cannot start to work on that immediately.  If you want to go ahead no
problem from my side.  Otherwise I will try to make room for it in the
next weeks.

The most time-consuming part is to prepare the transition, specially
if they need modifications or are entangled in other transitions...
there are >50 rev-deps already.


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