On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:45:30PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote: > It turns out that the ABI in libsensors1, from the lm-sensors > distribution, changed between lm-sensors 2.6.5 and 2.7.0, without a > corresponding change in the library's soname. (See bug #191572.) I > forwarded this to the upstream maintainers over a week ago and haven't > heard anything back yet. It's been suggested that I change the soname > of the library within Debian; this would result in > (a) Repackaging lm-sensors 2.6.5, which would just have libsensors1 > 1:2.6.5-1, which in turn would Conflict: with any packages that > have compiled against libsensors1 2.7.0 (AFAIK, just one). > (b) Changing the soname of libsensors.so to libsensors.so.1.debian.1 > in lm-sensors 2.7.0, and changing the name of the library package > to libsensors-1debian1, and changing the shlibs file > appropriately. > (c) Checking that the user-kernel interface hasn't changed; that is, > that the 2.6.5 library works vs. 2.7.0 modules, and vice versa. > Is this a reasonable course of action? The soname feels a little ugly > to me, but otherwise, assuming (c), it does feel like about the right > thing to do. You're talking about doing all of the above? If you do (b) and (c), why do you still need to do (a)? (I.e., why would you maintain two versions of the library in unstable simultaneously?) Doing (b) and (c) seems reasonable, at least. But if you don't have kernel interface issues from (c), I don't see why you would want (a). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpVKpWQo6ABD.pgp
Description: PGP signature