On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 05:23:37AM +0000, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > A few months before the sarge release, I have received a bug report > telling me that libusb is not usable on arm. It was due to a structure > alignment, and I fixed that by using the aligned attribute of gcc, and I > sent the patch to the upstream. > Recently, the upstream answer me he have merged another fix, which is > not ABI compatible with mine. The only affected architecture is arm. > The question is should we use this "new" ABI and do a transition? libusb > in Debian is working correctly on arm, but that means that the binaries > are not compatible with other distributions. Is it really a problem? > Also note there will probably be an API + ABI transition for libusb in > etch+1, so we can use back the upstream ABI at this point. It's certainly useful if libraries of a given soname can be ABI-compatible across distributions, but it's not required and not always possible. At a minimum, if you use the "new" ABI you would need to rename the library package on arm, and probably also on all other architectures for sanity's sake. That doesn't seem worth the effort to me, breaking compatibility with sarge just to be compatible instead with other ARM Linux distributions (whichever ones those are). Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature