Re: Are soname bumps required when library upgrades break compatability?
>> I'm asking mostly for bug reporting. I don't maintain any libraries.
>> When I file a bug report against a library for breaking ABI
>> compatability without bumping the soname, do I report it as serious?
>> Or just important? What would the justification be for reporting as
>> serious if there is no policy regarding it?
>Yes, serious at least, but I'd even say âgraveâ: ârenders package
>unusableâ (by its dependencies) in reportbug.
That is a bit of a stretch. It would not be unusable. You can't really
say "breaks unrelated packages" either, because they would have a
direct relation.
It seems like I've gotten to the point where I thought I had a good
idea as to how debian works, and then I find that maybe I don't know as
much as I thought I did.
>> I agree with that, at least somewhat. The problem is that some
>> excellent packages would not be able to make it into debian at all,
>> because they depend on a volatile library.
>You aren't speaking about the ffmpeg case, are you?
No, I don't know much about that. I'm thinking of libguichan. Three
packages in debian require it. I'm thinking of using it for a project I
am working on. I noticed that a serious bug report filed against the
guichan debian package was closed, but not fixed.
I was just wondering about how I would justify keeping the bug at RC,
if the maintainer wanted to downgrade it. He is cooperative, and is
genuinely trying his best to maintain a good stable package, but I like
to plan ahead. I also thought it was odd that soname was barely
mentioned in debian policy, as it is so important.
I recommended to Patrick, the maintainer of guichan, that he writes to
this list to ask about how he should handle his package.
-Brandon
Reply to: