Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
>> Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> Yes, there are some additional benefits if you involve upstream, and if
> someone pursues this, that's fine. But it's not worthless if we don't
> involve upstream, because it still solves the problems for all packages
> within Debian.
You are of course right.
> > Perhaps this works: don't version libpng2 symbols. Ditch libpng3 and
> > release libpng4 which is libpng3 with versioned symbols, nothing else.
> > That reduces the need to recompile applications linked against libpng2.
>
> There's no reason to bump the SONAME when adding versioned symbols.
> Symbol versioning can be added WITHOUT breaking existing apps that look
> for unversioned symbol names.
Yup. The question still stands... do we really have to recompile the
pacakges linked against libpng2, too? I'm not trying to avoid the
work, I'd just like to know if the while thing can be simplified a bit
to reduce the chance for trouble. Here I have 400+ packages which
depend on libpng2.
--
Marcelo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: