© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
Thank you for the reviews!
> It was initially confusing to me that this was a backport of a version that's been superseded in mantic, and also that it includes the addition of a number of files under debian/patches; I wondered why these had not been committed upstream. Then I saw that these were present in the -7 package, so this is ok from that perspective.
Right, I backported the 0.106.1-7 version, as I didn't want to introduce the package split into the LTS for now. It's not needed and only makes things more complicated. Also, the (non-superseeded) 0.107 version in Mantic is not yet ready for SRU, as it didn't see lots of real-world usage yet, thus the backport of 0.106.1.
> [...] But the net effect here is that you are now introducing a libnetplan0 package in the archive, whose version number is >= 0.106, but whose ABI does not match what is declared in later versions - so if someone installs this package in jammy, then upgrades to mantic, apt may not have correct information about the necessary order in which packages must be upgraded, because a new package using these symbols in mantic will think that the version in jammy satisfies the dependency!
Those symbols were exported by accident in 0.106[.1] and are (supposed to be) unused. They will be dropped with an SOVER bump in 24.04. I thought it would be better to not export them in the stable series, so people don't start to depend on it. But I see the ordering issue you're describing on the Jammy -> Mantic dist upgrade. We can easily drop that patch (and update the .symbols file accordingly).
> debian/
In Mantic we're dropping a legacy symlink for the Netplan generator in "lib/netplan/