Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> immo vero scripsit:
> Yes, there is a mass rebuild. But using versioned symbols, we only have
> to rebuild all of the packages that *directly* link against libpng in
> order to have a smooth transition. If you change the SONAMEs of
> libraries that link against libpng, then we also have to rebuild all
> packages that *indirectly* link against libpng, as well.
Is this statement true?
Take this scenario:
A user is using Debian 3.0
Looks at unstable.
He upgrades mozilla (mozilla might not be a good example,
maybe evolution) which pulls in new libgtk1.2,
and other misc things which is compiled against libpng3.
Does the rest of gnome/kde/whatever still work after that?
More precisely, does versioned symbols really help
applications to link against libpng2 and libpng3 at
the same time (which might be versioned or unversioned)
I don't accept "use dist-upgrade" as a solution.
That is a poor answer.
And I hope you do read libpkg-guide,
if you have comments on it, you are more than welcome.
Without reading the libpkg-guide, you may have a hard time
understanding my backgrounds on this issue of library packaging.
If you find my mail terse, libpkg-guide has more than 4000 words.
I don't like long mails: they are hard to read, and I don't
like reading them, and even if they are saying something false,
they don't get fixed.
If Debian wants to do a Debian local hack to one of its core
libraries, which makes it binary-incompatible,
then we might as well start changing SONAMEs of random libraries
ignoring upstream, as some libraries in Debian already are doing.
I was a bit overloaded in the last few days, which
may have caused mails to be a bit terse.
firstname.lastname@example.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org