On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hi Nikita, > Am Donnerstag, den 28.07.2005, 12:04 +0400 schrieb Nikita V. > Youshchenko: > > > I talked to upstream and they > > > said, the ABI broke during the development unintentionally, but we > > > should better stick to libxml++2.6-2.10.0 and recompile the dependent > > > packages. > > Is 2.10 backward-compatable with 2.6 at ABI level ? > As I said, the ABI broke unintentionally (and they were most agrieved), > so I guess there might be some glitches. Upstream advised us to > recompile the depending packages. I'm not sure at which stage the ABI > broke (from which version on). "Just recompile" isn't acceptable for Debian; I'd be surprised if it is for Ubuntu either. If the ABI has changed, the library runtime package name must change with it even if the library soname has not due to upstream error. This is particularly important given that libxml++2.6 was present in a stable release of Debian. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature