Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> (09/12/2008):
> You're talking about the shlib, as explained in my other message, I
> was inadvertently folding the two into one. My mistake.
Finally.
> > You *do* understand the concept of SONAME and shlibs, right?
>
> Yes, but adding symbols "properly" includes the shlib change and I
> wasn't thinking of it as a separate step, just a routine part of
> adding a symbol. Upstream bias.
*shrug*. Knowing the Debian Policy would help compensate that bias. Not
to mention that you aren't advising upstreams here, but Debian
packagers, so I'd even expect good knowledge of the Policy.
> I use symbols instead now and that is a far better system - easier to
> manage upstream too.
Still, knowing the basics...
> The RC bugs in question are not against my own packages, I was merely
> reviewing the existing bugs to try and get Lenny released.
Oh, you were adding random noise (buggy severity change, tag addition)
to #50707{1,2}? Then I do recognize my mistake assuming you were the
maintainer.
> [Various stats, etc.] I don't think a genuine mistake is grounds to
> disrespect my contribution.
As I already stated, what I hate is your repeating you're right (“Cyril,
we've had this discussion before” etc.) when you're being clueless.
> > Again, wrong.
>
> Umm, adding symbols properly does not require a SONAME bump - you've
> said so yourself. The confusion is what is meant by "properly" - I
> considered "properly" as including the shlibs (or preferably symbols)
> support, not as a separate task. Dumping new symbols into the library
> without any packaging support is not a good idea, I've never doubted
> that. (Just didn't expect others to be neglecting it).
So you claim you're doing your job right (note that I'm not questioning
that), by playing with symbols while you didn't know anything about
shlibs (read it as “confusing them with SONAME”) before some minutes
ago? Impressive.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature