Re: Gnome to be removed from debian?
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 09:15:11AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > break leave anything broken. It is obvious however, that fewere releases
> > > into unstable with a better versioning would be much better. I think
> > > most would agree (users and maintainers) that they would rather things
> > > break and know what to do about it than to wonder which of the 6
> > > versions they are going to need.
> >
> > I'm confused.
> >
> > These are *major* version increases - if you define major as soname.
>
> From what I understand, these packages do not have an increased soname,
> hence the problem that they encounter trying to keep packages linked
> against them conflicting. A packgage linked against libgtk1.1.3 could
> actually try to link against libgtk1.1.15. Which is why they named the
> maintainer named the latest libs really weird. For instance I have this
> on my system (this isn't all of them, just the 2 I picked out):
Actually, you misunderstand ;-)
Witness:
jules@pear% objdump -p /usr/lib/libgtk[.-]* | grep SONAME
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.11
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.11
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.11
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.13
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.13
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.14
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.14
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.14
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.2
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.2
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.5
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.5
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.9
SONAME libgtk-1.1.so.9
SONAME libgtk.so.1
SONAME libgtk.so.1
The sonames have been bumped. (um.. it looks like the soname for 15 is
14. Hopefully that means the API didn't change, or someone screwed up).
I don't know if this is an upstream decision, or a debian one. It's
certainly sensible - the soname should change, if the API is changing.
> /usr/lib/libgtk.so.1.0.6
> /usr/lib/libgtk-1.1.so.11.0.1
>
> That first one is a normal looking library. The second one looks
> horrible. I'm not sure if this is of upstream making or maintainer
> decision in order to get an soname increase. If it's the latter, then
> it's the wrong way, simply because binaries compiled on other systems
> wont work right on Debian without tweaking, and the opposite is true as
> well, which is very important to a lot of people.
As it happens, we don't have binary compatibility with RedHat at the
moment, so this is slightly less important. (the register_frame_info
thing bit them, and they didn't fix it like we did).
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: