Comment 28 for bug 11370

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:09:10 +0900
From: Horms <email address hidden>
To: Andres Salomon <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#284356: SONAME bumping and d-i

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 12:22:46AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 12:23 +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 02:32:13PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:22:25 +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > A sounds fine from my point of view, as it involves the least effort.
> > > > Although as I discovered this morning, there seems to be a second ABI
> > > > change relating to the same patch, so we should get that out ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284356#msg68
> > >
> > > Hm, you're referring to the addition of termios_sem (which was already
> > > added to 2.6), or something else?
> >
> > Yes, that is the one.
> >
>
> Joeyh doesn't seem to care which we do (he said it's the same amount of
> effort for him both ways, he just asked that whatever we decide be
> consistent for 2.4 and 2.6. So, I'm going to recommend reverting the
> tty locking patch and bumping the SONAME. For 2.4, this makes sense
> since the kernel w/ the broken ABI hasn't propogated to sarge yet. For
> 2.6, this is a bit more painful, since the broken ABI is already in
> sarge, but.. *shrug*.

Andres and I discussed this on IRC and as the SONAME=2 packages
are produced by the same source package as the SONAME=1 packages
once the SONAME=2 are accepted the SONAME=1 will go away. In
a nutshell this means the update SONAME=1 then upload SONAME=2
approach doesn't help any more than just uploading SONAME=2.
So we have more or less decided to do that for both 2.4 and 2.6
and we are going to work on making that happen.

--
Horms