Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:56:58PM +0000, Eduardo Pérez Ureta wrote:
> I'm also opposed to this form of transition like other Debian developers.
> I would like to see all the sonames changed.
Then IMHO you should request upstream library maintainers to bump their
sonames whenever API/ABI breaks. That is the root cause of the problem.
> But, I will support the transition if the Debian project officially states
> that this is the last API/ABI transition without changing the sonames.
> And the next other API/ABI change in KDE or other C++ program or even C
> program MUST change the sonames even if other distributions don't change the
> sonames when changing the API/ABI.
IMHO, this is shooting the patient to cure the disease. The real problem
is that upstream fails to bump the sonames whenever the API/ABI changes.
This is not a problem with Debian, it's a problem with upstream. Making
Debian bump the sonames ourselves may cure the symptoms but doesn't cure
the upstream problem, and only introduces more problems (incompatibility
with other distros). Our current way of handling this within Debian may be
messy, but this problem is inherently messy until upstream adopts a sane
This is just my $0.02. I don't pretend to be thoroughly knowledgeable
about soname issues.
Music critic: "That's an imitation fugue!"