Re: Please advice about symbols versioning (was Re: How to close bug #620550?
hi,
Thanks for your comment.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Keith Lawson <keith@nowhere.ca> wrote:
>> Don't use libqdbm15. Upstream might (and probably will!) use such SONAME
>> for their own purposes in the future.
>>
>> Are there actually any packages in Debian using gdbm symbols provided by
>> libqdbm? If there are none, I'd just drop the symbols without changing
>> package name or SONAME, and wouldn't bother creating a separate package.
I tried to check this (with apt-rdepends -r and apt-source and grep...), and
I think that no debian package use qdbm's gdbm emulation.
(There is no "include <hovel.h>".)
> Won't that break PHP code if people are using GDBM in their applications?
> Even if Debian packages don't use GDBM there's no guarantee that people's
> applications don't. How can you provide GDBM in PHP without linking against
> GDBM and removing the GDBM symbols from QDBM which libphp5.so is linked
> against?
I guess there is no PHP code which using GDBM code. If there is, they
had falled into troubles after php switched to link from gdbm to qdbm, because
PHP source package also doesn't include hovel.h.
I think that I should care the people who has been using qdbm and gdbm interface
for their published/non-published programs.
(provide alternative package, only notice, and so on..)
regards,
--
KURASHIKI Satoru
Reply to: