Re: ABI change in libsensors1 (from lm-sensors)
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:45:30PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
>> (a) Repackaging lm-sensors 2.6.5, which would just have libsensors1
>> 1:2.6.5-1, which in turn would Conflict: with any packages that
>> have compiled against libsensors1 2.7.0 (AFAIK, just one).
>
>> (b) Changing the soname of libsensors.so to libsensors.so.1.debian.1
>> in lm-sensors 2.7.0, and changing the name of the library package
>> to libsensors-1debian1, and changing the shlibs file
>> appropriately.
>
>> (c) Checking that the user-kernel interface hasn't changed; that is,
>> that the 2.6.5 library works vs. 2.7.0 modules, and vice versa.
>
>> Is this a reasonable course of action? The soname feels a little ugly
>> to me, but otherwise, assuming (c), it does feel like about the right
>> thing to do.
>
> You're talking about doing all of the above? If you do (b) and (c), why
> do you still need to do (a)? (I.e., why would you maintain two versions
> of the library in unstable simultaneously?)
>
> Doing (b) and (c) seems reasonable, at least. But if you don't have
> kernel interface issues from (c), I don't see why you would want (a).
I'd like packages that haven't recompiled vs. libsensors-1debian1 to
still work. (a) would mean providing the old libsensors1 with the old
ABI, which would enable this. (If (c) works and I do (b) but not (a),
then the lm-sensors source package now provides libsensors-dev and
libsensors-1debian1, and nothing provides libsensors1.)
--
David Maze dmaze@debian.org http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
Reply to: