Bug#791286: smokegen: library transition may be needed when GCC 5 is the default
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 05:03:04 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 13, 2015 09:39:43 AM Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> > Control: severity -1 serious
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:14:20 +0000 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
> > > - Decide if the symbols matching __cxx11 or B5cxx11 are part of the
> > >
> > > library API, and are used by the reverse dependencies of the
> > > library.
> >
> > There is at least one such symbol: _ZN5Smoke8classMapB5cxx11E
> >
> > > - If there are no reverse dependencies, it should be the package
> > >
> > > maintainers decision if a transition is needed. However this might
> > > break software which is not in the Debian archive, and built
> > > against these packages.
> >
> > There are many reverse dependencies.
> >
> > > - If a library transition is needed, please prepare for the change.
> > >
> > > Rename the library package, append "v5" to the name of the package
> > > (e.g. libfoo2 -> libfoo2v5). Such a change can be avoided, if you
> > > have a soversion bump and you upload this version instead of the
> > > renamed package. Prepare a patch and attach it to this issue (mark
> > > this issue with patch), so that it is possible to NMU such a
> > > package. [...]
> >
> > TODO
>
> I looked and the non-optional symbol that goes missing is:
>
> c++filt _ZN5Smoke8classMapE
> Smoke::classMap
>
> This is only used in qt4-perl according to codesearch.d.n. I've locally
> updated smokegen and verified qt4-perl will still build against it. Since
> only one rdepend is actually affected by this transition, I think it'd be
> easier to just upload smokegen with the fixed symbols file, but no v5
> package bump and then binNMU qt4-perl. There's enough else going on that
> bending the normal way of doing things makes sense in this case (at least
> to me).
>
> Scott K
I see Ubuntu did a v5 and that's really the right way to do it, so I guess
I'll do that.
Working on it.
Scott K
Reply to: