Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:29:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 21:29 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > > Again, this doesn't take into account existing symbols that change their
> > > ABI across versions. I won't insist too much, as I have already
> > > explained at large how heavy a burden it puts on the maintainer's
> > > shoulders.
> > I understood your point, unfortunately it doesn't look like there's much
> > to do except giving up all the other benefits that I expect from this
> > way of handling dependencies on shared libs.
> I agree that the benefits are worth the deal, but we should make clear
> that the price to pay for these benefits is a continuous effort from the
> maintainer. Therefore it should not be used by maintainers not aware of
> its subtleties.
Considering the number of bugs I see because of maintainers who don't notice
they need to change package names due to upstream soname changes, or who
routinely fail to bump their shlibs when new symbols are added, I think
there is definitely room here for a recommended solution for maintainers
that aren't watching the subtleties, even without trying to bump
dependencies based on API extensions.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.