Hi Andrey, On 21-03-13 07:46, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > 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. Could you please explain what the problem is then becasue I don't see it (I really want to learn here). As I understand it, if you get libavdevice53 in a newer version it should still work with stuff that was build against an older version, right? If it breaks, the soname should be updated and the packagename changed, so that the libraries can be co-installed. So I guess you see the problem elsewhere? Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature