On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:12:29PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>
> > i surely won't mess with curl internals but Daniel could be interested in
> > this, since it is also the only way to push 7.12.0 down towards the next
> > debian release. i don't really know how much this is feasible, even if the
> > api change doesn't look too radical.
>
> While I am interested in the development of this (I'm even a Debian user), I
> don't see what more I can do to help sorting this out.

hmm.. then we are not talking about the same thing and re-reading Tom's
mail it's again my fault.

indeed i was talking about a pach to make fit libcurl 7.12.0 in the
api of libcurl2. is this somewhat reasonable?

the drawback is that on debian libcurl 7.12.0 would be available in
two flavours, libcurl2 and libcurl3. this is something that smells
of troubles miles away. these problems would not regard the debian
packages but portability of software built on the libcurl2 7.12.0
across distributions...

so probably mine is not a great idea.

> In my view, a libcurl3 package sounds like the most sensible approach and then
> have all the packages dependent on libcurl2 move over to libcurl3 as soon as
> they've proved working with it. And when libcurl2 one day in the future has no
> further apps depending on it, it can be removed. There must exist plenty other
> packages that have went down exactly this road before.

i agree but again this cannot be forced right now.

> I'm not familiar with Debian rules and politics in this area, and I prefer to
> produce and release curl and libcurl without bothering about specific vendors'
> habits.

absolutely right

> I think you're doing a great job with the curl packages, Domenico.

i'm seeing you already know that in bad moments positive feedback is
very important ;)

thanks
domenico

-----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://people.debian.org/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Received on 2004-06-04