libxklavier and libgnomekbd transitions

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort-4]

Hi,

libxklavier and libgnomekbd need a transition. I uploaded them to experimental a
few days ago, and uploaded most of the rdeps too. I would like to upload them to
unstable now to start the transition.

The build-rdeps of the packages are:

emilio@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libxklavier12-dev
Reverse Build-depends in main:
------------------------------

gnome-settings-daemon
xfkc
xfce4-xkb-plugin
xfce4-settings
kdebase-workspace
glunarclock
control-center
libgnomekbd
gnome-applets

Found a total of 9 reverse build-depend(s) for libxklavier12-dev.


emilio@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libgnomekbd-dev
Reverse Build-depends in main:
------------------------------

gnome-settings-daemon
gnome-screensaver
control-center
gnome-applets

Found a total of 4 reverse build-depend(s) for libgnomekbd-dev.


As you can see, the libgnomekbd-dev transition only adds itself and
gnome-screensaver to the list of packages, so it wouldn't be a big deal to
transition them together.

I can upload all of them, except xfce4-xkb-plugin, xfce4-settings and xfkc
(which will be done by Yves-Alexis), kdebase-workspace (only needs to change the
build-dependency, the code has an #if #else to build with both APIs), and
glunarclock (seems unnecessary, but in any case a rebuild should be enough).

Should I let libxklavier-dev provide libxklavier12-dev for those packages that
will be fine with a binNMU? I'm not sure that's a good idea since the number of
packages that would benefit is too few (3 or 4) and we want them to use
libxklavier-dev for the next time the SONAME changes. We could remove the
provides in the future though.

What do you think? Can I start these two transitions together? If so, when is OK
to do so?

Cheers,
Emilio

[Yves-Alexis Perez-2]

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> I can upload all of them, except xfce4-xkb-plugin, xfce4-settings and xfkc
> (which will be done by Yves-Alexis), kdebase-workspace (only needs to change the
> build-dependency, the code has an #if #else to build with both APIs), and
> glunarclock (seems unnecessary, but in any case a rebuild should be enough).

And we are in contact so it should be possible to upload all 3 of them
in a row.

--
Yves-Alexis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Luk Claes]

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> Hi,
>
> libxklavier and libgnomekbd need a transition. I uploaded them to experimental a
> few days ago, and uploaded most of the rdeps too. I would like to upload them to
> unstable now to start the transition.
>
> The build-rdeps of the packages are:
>
> emilio@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libxklavier12-dev
> Reverse Build-depends in main:
> ------------------------------
>
> gnome-settings-daemon
> xfkc
> xfce4-xkb-plugin
> xfce4-settings
> kdebase-workspace
> glunarclock
> control-center
> libgnomekbd
> gnome-applets
>
> Found a total of 9 reverse build-depend(s) for libxklavier12-dev.
>
>
> emilio@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libgnomekbd-dev
> Reverse Build-depends in main:
> ------------------------------
>
> gnome-settings-daemon
> gnome-screensaver
> control-center
> gnome-applets
>
> Found a total of 4 reverse build-depend(s) for libgnomekbd-dev.
>
>
> As you can see, the libgnomekbd-dev transition only adds itself and
> gnome-screensaver to the list of packages, so it wouldn't be a big deal to
> transition them together.
>
> I can upload all of them, except xfce4-xkb-plugin, xfce4-settings and xfkc
> (which will be done by Yves-Alexis), kdebase-workspace (only needs to change the
> build-dependency, the code has an #if #else to build with both APIs), and
> glunarclock (seems unnecessary, but in any case a rebuild should be enough).
>
> Should I let libxklavier-dev provide libxklavier12-dev for those packages that
> will be fine with a binNMU? I'm not sure that's a good idea since the number of
> packages that would benefit is too few (3 or 4) and we want them to use
> libxklavier-dev for the next time the SONAME changes. We could remove the
> provides in the future though.
>
> What do you think? Can I start these two transitions together? If so, when is OK
> to do so?

Yes, it's ok. Please do it now.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort-4]

Luk Claes wrote:

> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> libxklavier and libgnomekbd need a transition. I uploaded them to experimental a
>> few days ago, and uploaded most of the rdeps too. I would like to upload them to
>> unstable now to start the transition.
>>
>> The build-rdeps of the packages are:
>>
>> emilio@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libxklavier12-dev
>> Reverse Build-depends in main:
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> gnome-settings-daemon
>> xfkc
>> xfce4-xkb-plugin
>> xfce4-settings
>> kdebase-workspace
>> glunarclock
>> control-center
>> libgnomekbd
>> gnome-applets
>>
>> Found a total of 9 reverse build-depend(s) for libxklavier12-dev.
>>
>>
>> emilio@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libgnomekbd-dev
>> Reverse Build-depends in main:
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> gnome-settings-daemon
>> gnome-screensaver
>> control-center
>> gnome-applets
>>
>> Found a total of 4 reverse build-depend(s) for libgnomekbd-dev.
>>
>>
>> As you can see, the libgnomekbd-dev transition only adds itself and
>> gnome-screensaver to the list of packages, so it wouldn't be a big deal to
>> transition them together.
>>
>> I can upload all of them, except xfce4-xkb-plugin, xfce4-settings and xfkc
>> (which will be done by Yves-Alexis), kdebase-workspace (only needs to change the
>> build-dependency, the code has an #if #else to build with both APIs), and
>> glunarclock (seems unnecessary, but in any case a rebuild should be enough).
>>
>> Should I let libxklavier-dev provide libxklavier12-dev for those packages that
>> will be fine with a binNMU? I'm not sure that's a good idea since the number of
>> packages that would benefit is too few (3 or 4) and we want them to use
>> libxklavier-dev for the next time the SONAME changes. We could remove the
>> provides in the future though.
>>
>> What do you think? Can I start these two transitions together? If so, when is OK
>> to do so?
>
> Yes, it's ok. Please do it now.

All done, the last one to be uploaded was glunarclock which is 6 days old now.

Let me know if there's anything else I should do.

Cheers,
Emilio