Update libraw1394 to version 2.0

Bug #311804 reported by Andrew Hunter
16
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
libraw1394 (Ubuntu)
Fix Released
Wishlist
Steve Langasek

Bug Description

New upstream release of libraw1394, provides compatibility with firewire-core modules.

New diff.gz attached.

Tags: merge upgrade
Revision history for this message
Andrew Hunter (rexbron) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Thomas E Jenkins (thomas-jenkins) wrote :

Heres another update to bring it to 2.0.1. I changed the package soname from -8 to -11 to match what is built. However, I did not make it conflict/replace libraw1394-8 which may or may not be the right thing to do.

Revision history for this message
Thomas E Jenkins (thomas-jenkins) wrote :

Heres another update to bring it to 2.0.1. I changed the package soname from -8 to -11 to match what is built. However, I did not make it conflict/replace libraw1394-8 which may or may not be the right thing to do.

Revision history for this message
Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

debian experimental has 2.0.2 shouldn't that version be used for the update rather?

Changed in libraw1394:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
Andrew Hunter (rexbron) wrote :

Checking the changelog, 2.0.2 is a license fix release. If 2.0.2 is in experimental, then a sync would be preferable.

Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote :

This needs to be a merge: http://patches.ubuntu.com/libr/libraw1394/libraw1394_1.3.0-4ubuntu1.patch

Also, changing the soname would require a lot of package rebuilds, and testing them. (apt-cache rdepends libraw1394-8). Are you willing to drive that process and test at least some of the reverse dependencies?

Changed in libraw1394:
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Artem Popov (artfwo) wrote :

If it is okay to merge/test the 2.0 package and it's reverse dependencides after the feature freeze, I'd be happy to do this.

tags: added: upgrade
Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote :

Karmic is now open; Артём, are you still interested in handling this merge?

Unsubscribing ubuntu-main-sponsors for now since there's no sponsorable merge here at present; please re-subscribe u-m-s again when this is ready for sponsorship.

Revision history for this message
Artem Popov (artfwo) wrote :

Yes, I have already tested building several major apps (like VLC, ffado...) against libraw1394-2 and libiec61883-1.2 (copied from Debian) locally on Jaunty. Everything seems to work without problems.

What has to be done to move them into Karmic? Should I proceed with a merge procedure for libraw1394 and sync request for libiec61883? And then just produce lots of nochange-rebuild debdiffs, is that right?

Revision history for this message
Artem Popov (artfwo) wrote :

The merge for libraw/libiec is done. The merges are currently in REVU:
(Both are uploaded twice, because of jaunty->karmic mistake in changelog)

http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=5639 - libraw1394
http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=5640 - libiec61883

I'd like request sponsorship for both libiec61883 and libraw1394 here, because libiec61883 in Ubuntu is also stuck at a deprecated version and it is heavily connected to libraw1394 anyway. Thanks!

Revision history for this message
Artem Popov (artfwo) wrote :

A debdiff for the libraw1394 merge above.

Changed in libraw1394 (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Artem Popov (artfwo) wrote :

A debdiff for the libiec61883 merge above.

Artem Popov (artfwo)
tags: added: merge
Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote :

Thanks, I'll take care of sponsoring the libraw1394 merge.

libiec61883 happens to have become a sync now, no need to merge that.

There's also no need to generate debdiffs for reverse-dependencies - since those changes will be trivial, Ubuntu developers will handle those directly. If there are any reverse-deps that are known to fail to build with the new libraw1394, help with fixing those would be appreciated.

Changed in libraw1394 (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → Steve Langasek (vorlon)
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

This bug was fixed in the package libraw1394 - 2.0.2-2ubuntu1

---------------
libraw1394 (2.0.2-2ubuntu1) karmic; urgency=low

  * Merge from Debian unstable (LP: #311804), remaining changes:
    - debian/README.Debian: Corrected file to use sudo instead of running
      as root

libraw1394 (2.0.2-2) unstable; urgency=low

  * Upload to unstable.

libraw1394 (2.0.2-1) experimental; urgency=low

  * New upstream release. Closes: #499775
    - Supports the juju stack. Closes: #434551, #453358

 -- Aerteieem PEopeove <email address hidden> Mon, 04 May 2009 10:12:18 +0700

Changed in libraw1394 (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related blueprints

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.