Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Your understanding is correct -- a binary that wants a versioned symbol
> will not settle for an unversioned symbol. Is this a grave concern?
> Do we know that there are ISVs compiling (libpng-using) software on
> Debian today with the expectation that their binaries will work
> elsewhere? As far as I've heard, /no one/ develops software on Debian
> except for use on Debian-derived systems.
This is why I'd like to see the versioning for *distribution-provided*
libraries in the LSB. Asking the vendors to version their libs will cause
screwups, of course.
We should at the very least make sure core libs (anything used by a nss
module, and anything used by core GNOME, KDE and X11 libraries) are either
versioned, or extremely unlikely to be linked twice...
> so after an open bug has been sitting idle for (e.g.) 4 months, the
Make it 1 month. We are trying to put an end to this "no NMU even if I am
not doing my work" mentality. And recompiling a package is a very trivial
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com