Le dimanche 03 juin 2007 à 19:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Pierre explained that a sane library maintainer could/would use a new > version associated to the symbol even the ABI hasn't changed so that any > application linked against the newer version get to effectively depend > on the new version. I'm afraid we could count the number of libraries that use a per-symbol versioning scheme with a single hand. > I really think that the benefits outweigh those problems by an order of > magnitude. And as Mike said, it's not worse than forgetting to bump the > shlibs currently. Except that you are asking for something much more complicated. Furthermore, we currently have dh_makeshlibs -V for upstreams who add to their ABI in almost each new release. > On the contrary, with my mecanism if a new symbol appear it's > automatically associated to the new release. Thus it's no more possible > to "miss new symbols and forget to bump the shlibs". I really think that > on the whole, it will be way better than the current situation. It will surely be better for a majority of packages, and it is going to completely break a minority. It is not possible to rely on maintainers who don't really understand all the ways an ABI can change to tell whether this or that symbol has changed. I wouldn't trust myself to do that over a long time for all my own packages, at least. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=