Soft/hard dependency requirements post 2.8 - input, please

[0inkane]

Hi,

as apackager (Chakra) who's subscribed to this mailing list I guess I 
can help answering your question:
libcdio is unfortunately not ABI compatible (I  guess you're interested 
in ABI, not API), see http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/libcdio.html 
. I can't tell you what other distribution package that depends on it, 
for us the following "applications" depend on it:
clementine  gst-plugins-ugly  gstreamer0.10-ugly-plugins  mplayer  
mplayer-vaapi  vcdimager  vlc  xbmc

As a community distro which uses a semi-rolling release schedule, it's 
easier to just recompile everything than to try shipping both, but  I 
guess for distributions with a fixed time schedule like *buntu that is 
probably different. They might however know whether they can ship both 
at the same time.

Best regards,

Fabian Kosmale

Am Mo 29 Jul 2013 22:21:45 CEST schrieb Matěj Laitl:
> On 29. 7. 2013 Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
>> with the GSoC projects we discovered a few dependency requirements
>> that will be necessary.
>>
>> libcdio 0.90
>
> This is usually fine, the distros package the libraries *for us*
> (applications), not for themselves, so if we declare the dependency in advance
> and communicate it well, it is okay.
>
> However, I've heard that libcdio 0.90 has changed the API wrt 0.83. (0.83
> being common is distros today) Sam/Tatjana, please answer the following
> decision tree:
>
> * Is 0.90 API backward compatible with 0.83 one? (meaning that apps written
>    against 0.83 compile & work fine with 0.90 without porting)
> a) Yes -> everything is fine, distros can compile all apps against 0.90 in
>     their release after Amarok 2.9 (14.04 etc.)
> b) No ->
>     * Can cdio 0.83 and 0.90 coexist on the same system without significant
>       effort?
>     ba) Yes -> distros can just ship both
>     bb) No ->
>         * Are other apps depending on cdio 0.83 (i.e. ffmpeg, mplayer, ...)
>           being ported to 0.90? Are any patches floating around?
>         bba) Yes -> we need to coordinate with them to release versions
>              depending on 0.90 at roughly the same time.
>         bbb) No -> we might have a problem. Are the 0.83/0.90 changes
>              significant?
>
> 	Matěj
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel