Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> (2015-06-15): > On 2015-06-15 08:04, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:26:26 -0700 > > Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > > > >> Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes: > >> > >>> This is a recurring (anti-)pattern: > >> > >>> * an ABI-stable, high-level library, say libhigh0, links to a > >>> lower-level library, say liblow0 > >>> * we have an ABI transition from liblow0 to liblow1 > >>> * liblow0 and liblow1 do not both have versioned symbols > >> > >> And this point is the root of the problem. > >> > >> When I'm in a particular tilting at windmills mood, I think we should > >> just stop accepting new shared libraries in Debian that don't use > >> symbol versioning, and make adding symbol versioning mandatory the > >> next time the SONAME changes. > > > > With the proviso that "ignoring/fudging" a SONAME change to avoid this > > step is an RC bug. A SONAME change going through NEW which doesn't > > include symbol versioning should be a reject. > > > > The work to generate the symbols has already been done but needs a new > > maintainer (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543640). > > That would need to be fixed first. > > > >> [...] > > To avoid confusing myself further, Russ and Neil, are you both talking > about the "debian/symbols" files? I thought Russ might have been > talking about "versioned symbols at DSO level" (e.g. symbol@LOW0 vs > symbol@LOW1). I'm pretty sure Russ was indeed talking about versioned symbols at DSO level. Having debian/symbols doesn't solve the issue at hand here. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature