SONAME bumping and d-i
This is from #debian-boot, regarding bumping the SONAME and reverting the
CAN-2004-081 patch (see #284356 for details):
<dilinger> joeyh: have you talked to horms about his incrementing of the
2.4.27 SONAME stuff yet?
<joeyh> I haven't. I've seen his mail
<joeyh> if ya gotta do it, ya gotta do it, but it will of course cause a
certian amount of d-i pain
<dilinger> he's trying to decide whether he should revert the patch in -1,
and make a -2
<dilinger> well, at this point...
<dilinger> a) we've already broken the ABI. to revert it will break the
ABI again, and
<dilinger> b) if it's a large hassle for d-i to switch kernel package names,
is it really worth reverting? i assume d-i will want to use the kernel w/
security patches
<dilinger> we'll probably have to do the same for 2.6, of course
<joeyh> oh, so you're talking about us just continuing in with the broken abi
<dilinger> yes, if we think that's the better solution. at this point, i
don't know
<joeyh> it seems to me that either approach will probably end up breaking rc2
at some point.
<joeyh> not changing the soname seems more likely to me to break it though
<dilinger> ok
<joeyh> if the package name changes, we have to update rootskel and the
initrds, iirc that should be all
<dilinger> so you're a fan of bumping the SONAME and reverting for -1, then
<joeyh> hmm, let me think about it some more
<joeyh> if we bump the soname, the kernel udebs package names will also change
<dilinger> ok. i'm going to quote this and post to the (d-k) list, just
follow up w/ what you decide. horms and i talked about it on irc last night,
it would be good to get a discussion on the list
Reply to: