On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:48:31PM -0500, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > 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. The only packages that are affected are those packages that link against both libpng and against another library that links against libpng. The list of such packages should be much smaller. What adding versioned symbols to libpng2 gives us is a smooth transition. If the rule is "ok, recompile everything against libpng3", there will be packages that are unnecessarily broken in unstable for a while. Maybe the number of broken packages is so small that we don't want to go to the effort of adding versioned symbols, but that's not how people were making it sound. The more packages that are affected, the longer the libpng2 -> libpng3 transition will take, and the more important it is to provide a smooth transition. FWIW, I currently show 117 library packages that depend on libpng2, and 9 library packages that depend on libpng3. I haven't done the math to see how many packages will end up broken. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpKRG9RG0uO3.pgp
Description: PGP signature