On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 05:20:43AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> immo vero scripsit: > > > 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. > > But, this is precisely what you are proposing when you suggest changing > > the SONAME of every library that links against libpng! At least with > > versioned symbols, binaries built on other platforms have a chance of > > working on Debian systems (as long as they don't link in too many copies > > of libpng). With your proposed change, we will be permanently > > incompatible with other distros -- not just during the libpng2->libpng3 > > transition, but afterwards, as well. > No, I think we are incompatible now. > AFAIK, other distros have started recompiling their binaries against png3. > By not changing the soname, we are doing disservice to the > free software community as a whole. > Our libgtk2.0 links against libpng2, while other distros have > it linked against libpng3, for example. But creating 'libgtk2.0png3' also makes us incompatible with other distros; thus we need to recompile libgtk2.0 against libpng3, WITHOUT changing the soname. (And I can safely assure you that changing the soname of libgtk when linking against new versions of dependency libs has never been the practice on other distros, either.) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgprYsHa8mGMB.pgp
Description: PGP signature