On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:15:22PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> [070607 18:04]: > > > Reality is that this build must fail with a proper warning, so that the > > > maintainer can decide if this is an excption and ok or whether he should > > > cluebat upstream about a what soname means. > > > > > Reality is that libs export private symbols (not part of the API, and > > not used by anything), and a private symbol disappearing shouldn't force > > a SONAME change. > > Having a private symbol before was already a bug that the Debian > mantainer should have caught. If it happens that such things (which > theoretically should detectable by some script) are not catched, then > changing the semantics of symbols is even more likely to be missed. > (And thus we have to expect quite some breakage from less strict > dependencies). symbol visibility support in gcc is not that old, and many upstream don't use it (yet). For them there is many many many private symbols in the libraries, and well, they don't matter at all. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp0VvefMPy7S.pgp
Description: PGP signature