On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:32:22AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 04 Jan 2002, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:27:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Another way is to bump the soname on libL at the time you bump the one > > > on libM. People are usually against this, since in fact the libL > > > interface hasn't changed at all. I'm not sure whether that would > > > actually solve all the problems. > > But libL *has* changed: maybe the source API hasn't, but the binary API > > *has*, and that what the so-name's for. Note that the shlibs need to be > > changed too, which means changing the package name, too. > Well, the binary API has changed, true, but only because of the way dynamic > linking is being used. It doesn't really matter why, it just matters that the binary API changed incompatibly. That means the shlibs need changing, as does the package name. > Since this is a change that is completely out of the > control of the upstream maintainer, they will not like the idea of bumping > the SONAME at all... Well, the easy solution would be to avoid the problem and not release with libpng3 in common use. There's a bit of a problem there due to Build-Dependencies on libpng-dev, but that's not insolvable. > So I'd mark that possibility as 'will not work' and skip to the next one. (Yay for politics forcing bad technical solutions) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. The daffodils are coming. Are you? linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia --- http://linux.conf.au/
Attachment:
pgpbhtbYNepKH.pgp
Description: PGP signature