On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 08:15:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > pyro@debian.org wrote: > >[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.] > Non-transition is safe and desirable if all the C++ libraries it depends on > use > versioned symbols. libstdc++ does, and apparently that's the only one > libaspell > depends on. So indeed no transition is necessary or desirable for > libaspell. We've never treated this as grounds for a package name change in the absence of an upstream soname change before; I don't see any reason why we would want to special-case it here. The better answer here is "don't let libraries you depend on use unversioned symbols", but we're a pretty long way away from that yet. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature