[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: libconfig



On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:06:16PM +0000, jltallon@adv-solutions.net wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:14:45 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 02:05:25AM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> >> libconfig (1.4.4-1) unstable; urgency=low
> >> 
> >>   * New upstream version
> >>     - soname bump to 9
> >> 
> >>   * Packaging
> >>     - Updated to debhelper compatibility level 7
> >>     - Added symbols files for libraries
> >> 
> >>  -- Jose Luis Tallon <jltallon@adv-solutions.net>  Wed, 14 Apr 2010
> >>  1:06:09 +0200
> > 
> > Now that you change the soname and all, did you check the reverse
> > dependencies?
> 
> I am not removing any existing soname for now; the new upload simply
> carries a new soname. Nor do I conflict with any previous soname:
> Reverse dependencies won't stop working until the previous sonames are
> removed.

Ermm, you're not removing what? Your new version 1.4.4-1 provides
different packages names, i.e. libconfig9 instead of libconfig8 (and
others accordingly).

> However, there are no reverse-depends in the Archive as of now.

Sure?

,----
| ?0 jhr@ca:pts/9 [/tmp/c] $ apt-cache rdepends libconfig++8
| libconfig++8
| Reverse Depends:
|   libconfig++8-dev
|   ldc
|   flush
| ?0 jhr@ca:pts/9 [/tmp/c] $ apt-cache rdepends libconfig8
| libconfig8
| Reverse Depends:
|   qwo
|   libconfig8-dev
`----

Looking at their build dependencies, it seems they depend on
libconfig8-dev (libconfig++8-dev respectively) and thus need a source
upload to depend on either libconfig9-dev or a more generic
libconfig-dev if you provide one.

> > Do they need binNMUs or even source uploads? Do they still work?
> 
> The soname bump would have meant recompilation at the very least (most
> probably even source changes, since an API change also happened).
> In any case, the addition of symbols files makes backporting and/or
> upgrading easier, since ld.so can use the additional information (since
> libc6 2.3.6ds1 if memory serves me well) to satisfy symbol dependencies.

True but the binaries using the lib need to be compiled against it with
symbols in order to use them => re-compiling is needed.

You may correct me if I'm wrong.

Hauke

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: