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

Re: Re: aspell upgrade woes

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

Reply to: