On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:17:50PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Maybe I've picked the wrong example, the actual problem was with > > libavdevice53, the same soname is used for either 0.8.5-1 and 9.3-1, > > but 9.3-1 links to libavcodec54 while 0.8.5-1 links to libavcodec53, so > > my binary ended up importing either libavcodec53 and libavcodec54 when > > both were installed and did not work. > If this is true, and I must say I may have had the same experience, > isn't this hinting at a bug in libavdevice53, not being stable enough to > keep the same SONAME? I think you should file a bug against libavdevice53. Why? The problem is caused by indirect dependency on both libavcodec53 and libavcodec54, not by ABI breakage. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature