[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: aspell upgrade woes

Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:

> Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> writes:
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
>>> So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all
>>> the existing packages that use libaspell.  
>>> Was this really an ABI change in libaspell?  If not, there was no
>>> reason to make the change as I understand it.  Were high-severity
> bugs
>>> filed on all the packages that depend on the library, requesting
>>> recompiles?
>>> My understanding was that this upgrade would *not* normally change
>>> library package names, so I'm wondering why this one did.  The aspell
>>> changelog doesn't contain anything illuminating.
>> Uhh...
>> aspell (0.60.3-2) unstable; urgency=low
>> * debian/control: renamed libaspell15 to libaspell15c2 for the GCC 4.0
>>     ABI change transition
> So, to repeat, since apparently my questions were not clear enough:
> 1: Was there an ABI change in libaspell15 itself?  (In the
> *programming* *source-level* interface?)  Which functions interfaces
> changed, and why were the changes not noted in the changelog?

Uhhhhh... no...


It's a C++ library and the ABI changed due to being compiled with GCC

[Actually, although it's written in C++, AFAIK it only exports a C
interface so the transition may not have been necessary.  I only
realized this yesterday though and I'm not entirely sure a
non-transition would be safe.]

> 2: Were high severity bugs filed on all the packages that depend on
> the library, requesting recompiles?

Not yet, presumably because a huge portion of unstable needs to undergo
the transition anyway.

Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to
pretend to like each other.

Reply to: