Please let others know if you build a update that ships with a bumped .soname

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 09.09.2008 14:57, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 08 September 2008 at 16:28, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> We have no dep-checker script (yet) that's running regularly for RPM 
>> Fusion.  Thus: If you update a package which contains libs (like for 
>> example the recently updated x264 package) which have a higher .soname 
>> than before then *pretty please* mail the list and tell us about so 
>> things can be fixed quickly. Even better: also send mails to all the 
>> maintainers that take care of packages that depend on the old library. 
>> Otherwise things might be broken for a few days and users will run into 
>> trouble -- we should do our best to avoid that. I'd say that should be 
>> way easier then in Fedora because we are a way small group of people.
> Sorry, I only asked on IRC.

Yeah, IRC really is dangerous ;-)

> My bad.

np. But while at it: I was really unsatisfied with the update process 
around faad2 and ffmpeg in Livna. We for example once had a newer faad2 
and newer ffmpeg in livna-testing, and even after weeks just few of the 
packages that depended on those two had been rebuild. We also had quite 
long (more then two weeks for some packages iirc) breakage periods in 
the devel branch after we built and pushed new faad2 or ffmpeg packages 
there.

We IMHO should try to avoid similar situations in the future. But I 
don't know how. "Working together more closely" might just do the trick.

Cu
knurd