Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> writes:
> Here's the relevant bit explaining why there's really nothing we can
> do about it, from Ryan's message:
> Why don't we just change the sonames?
> Because upstream chooses the soname to match their API.
Sonames reflects ABIs, not APIs. If upstream fail to arrange for
different soname fields for different ABIs, wherever those ABIs come
from, then they have a bug.
I agree that Debian should be extremely wary of unilaterally changing
sonames, of course. But the choice is not, or at least was not,
merely between "incompatible with latest Red Hat" and "incompatible
with old Debian"; another alternative is to persuade the relevant
upstreams to use proper sonames.
A further, probably etter, alternative would be for GCC to modify the
sonames of new-ABI libraries automatically. (Even better it would
include, possibly as as hash to keep things short, the sonames of all
the dependent libraries.) I believe this approach would minimize pain
for both library authors and integrators such as Debian.