Fwd: Re: RFS: poco (updated package)
can you please respond a short statement about API and ABI stability of poco.
---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ----------
Betreff: Re: RFS: poco (updated package)
Datum: Samstag 26 Dezember 2009
Von: George Danchev <email@example.com>
An: Patrick Roland Gansterer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Patrick Roland Gansterer writes:
> George Danchev:
> > I'm still waiting for an answer to this:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/12/msg00300.html
> Do you think that a symbols file will be the correct solution? I didn't
> check the ABI history of poco, so i don't know if it is backward
> compatible and if this is a goal of upstream.
Well, adding symbols files is meant to control what symbols appear and
disappear with new releases. OTOH, apparently upstream bumps the soname, since
they break the binary compatibility (at least) in the first place, so the
question is why they break the it with their library effectively obliterating
one of the contracts a well maintained production library should provided --
stable binary and programing interfaces (for instance we don't want libc doing
so with each new release).
Krzysztof, clamfs needs to be rebuilt (binNMU ) against the latest poco
library, too, since it now depends on libpocofoundation8 and libpoconet8 which
will automatically disappear from the archive (deemed as cruft ).