Re: libphysfs 1.0.1
- To: Barry deFreese <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, Debian Devel Games <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: libphysfs 1.0.1
- From: Adeodato Simó <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:55:24 +0100
- Message-id: <20090303185524.GC14753@chistera.yi.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Barry deFreese <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Debian Devel Games <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <49AD6232.email@example.com>
- References: <49A88838.firstname.lastname@example.org> <49AD6232.email@example.com>
TO ALL REVERSE DEPENDENCIES OF libphysfs: please don't recompile/upload
against libphysfs-1.0-1 until the issue mentioned below is figured out.
We will let you know.
* Barry deFreese [Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:00:34 -0500]:
> Barry deFreese wrote:
>> Hi folks,
> It appears that all of the packages are fine with libphysfs-1.0.1 so I
> have uploaded it to unstable.
Two comments. First, I'm not sure if you're aware that waiting for an
ACK from the release team before uploading soname bumping packages is
preferred. If you're aware and you thought it was okay, well, okay. ;-)
Second, and more importantly, I actually see no reason for the SONAME
bump! Meaning, that as far as I can see, the list of symbols between
libphysfs-1.0.so.1 and libphysfs-1.0.so.0 is identical. Do you know if
there has been some other ABI change that does not entail symbols, and
which would make the bump needed? If not, we'll need to talk about
reverting it. It'd be great if you could check.
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
-- Oscar Wilde