RFC/RFS: enet
Hi,
I updated the enet library to the latest upstream release (1.2). As
this is my first work on a library package, I would be glad for some
comments.
Upstream added new members in the middle of structs that are part of the
public API, so the new release breaks binary compatibility. I did bump
the soname [1] and changed the binary package names accordingly.
The library should still be API compatible, I also tested the only
reverse dependency in Debian (blockattack), which appears to work
without problems with the updated library (after rebuilding the package
of course).
I moved the developer headers to the libenet-dev package (without soname
version), I don't quite understand the reason to keep them in sync with
the soname version: Doesn't this require unnecessary changes in all
reverse deps if there is an ABI change without an API change?
(I would understand the point if an `API version' would be used when
naming the -dev packages, but why use the ABI version?)
The updated package can be found in the Git repository of the Debian
Games Team:
git clone git://git.debian.org/git/pkg-games/enet.git
http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-games/enet.git
Regards,
Ansgar
[1] Upstream has no soname as building of a shared library is not
supported by upstream, it was added to the Debian package by Gonéri
Le Bouder.
--
PGP: 1024D/595FAD19 739E 2D09 0969 BEA9 9797 B055 DDB0 2FF7 595F AD19
Reply to: