On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:50:34PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 01:28:05PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > > > Building sdl-mixer with vorbis 1.0.0 means linking the lib to a library > > > with different soname. Means you ought to change libsdl-mixer's soname > > > as well. > > > > In a world where insane cascading effects are considered desirable in > > library packages, sure... > How to draw the line between libraries deemed worthy enough to start a > soname cascade, and those that just don't matter? NO library should be allowed to cause this kind of archive disruption. The more widely used, the less it should be tolerated. > We can make sure that no other packages are affected, but still the > change might break home-brew software. Do we care? If people care about this, they should get it right in their packages to begin with, by use versioned symbols in their libraries -- and not make dozens of other maintainers dance to rebuild their packages after the real damage has already been done. Wasting developer resources in order to provide a smooth upgrade path for hypothetical third-party software is NOT in the best interest of our users. > > Such changes are only necessary when a binary references a library both > > directly and indirectly (foo-util needs libfoo, libbar; libfoo needs > > libbar). Such changes are never necessary when the multiply-referenced > > library uses versioned symbols. > Yes, see yesterday's thread about the libpngs. But as far as I can > tell, the library in question here doesn't use versioned symbols either. > It's just that libpng is much more widespread than libvorbisfile. And there hasn't been any evidence presented yet that libvorbisfile even needs to provide versioned symbols; I'm aware of no such 'foo-utils' package linking against libsdl-mixer1.2 and libvorbis0. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpeAYmxDxovc.pgp
Description: PGP signature