Bug#692155: Please
"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" <odyx@debian.org> writes:
> Thanks for your detailed summary, it's very helpful.
Glad!
> Le vendredi, 2 novembre 2012 23.47:11, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> In practice, divergence from the upstream SONAME practice is probably a
>> bad idea. This business of having an exposed private API is dangerous and
>> constitutes bad API design on upstream's part, but that's not something
>> that we can easily fix in Debian, and diverging too far from upstream is
>> probably counter-productive.
> That's the crux of the problem indeed. The "good way" would be to have a
> libcupsprivate, shipping its objects outside of standard library paths,
> right? Sounds like an invasive bug, not sure that it would be worth the
> work.
Actually, it could ship in the regular shared library path. It would just
change its SONAME a lot, which would be fine, since no other applications
would link against it and therefore no one would really care. And indeed
it would probably have to be in the public search path because libcups
itself would doubtless need to depend on it. (And it would probably have
to expose even more symbols than it currently does to provide the API that
libcups would need.)
The solution that I use is to just refuse to let myself use the concept of
a private API and make all of the things used internally by my software
public APIs as well, absorbing the maintenance costs that entails. But I
understand why people don't do that. :/
In any event, this is not the sort of thing that Debian should do
independent of upstream. It's way, way too invasive.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: