* Florian Weimer (fw@deneb.enyo.de) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > Additionally, for those who worry about DD's not being familiar with > > these, at least the ones who have been around a bit might remember my > > mail to d-d-a which pointed out the numerous bugs which were due to the > > lack of versioned symbols in various libraries. About a year ago as I > > recall. > > But that's hardly a fault of the NM process, isn't it? That comment didn't really have anything to do w/ the NM process, no. > To my knowledge, Debian does not encourage maintainers to enable symbol > versioning on their own, even if upstream doesn't support it. We're currently working on a patch to libtool to enable symbol versioning by default in it, as I understand it. I'm not sure if it's going to be applied upstream or not but I do expect us to have it soon. *I* certainly encourage you to enable symbol versioning in your Debian libraries. It solves alot of headaches. Upstream isn't always sane about it either due to a confused desire to support ancient unixes that don't have support for symbol versioning. Hence the libdb nightmare. As for who you'd need to hear from regarding Debian's 'official' position, I'm guessing that'd either be tbm or the Tech Committee. I did send a mail to the tech committee a couple years back but as I recall they kind of agreed it was good but didn't really take much of a stand on it in Debian. A fresh thread about it might stir them up a bit considering I think the problems with the lack of versioning have become more apparent as we've grown. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature