[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libphysfs 1.0.1

Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Stefan Potyra [Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:01:13 +0100]:



I've just taken a look at symbols and diff of headers between 1.0.1-1 and 1.1.1-1:


From an API perspecitive these are clearly compatible,

Aha? Do you know something about the nature of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/02/msg00662.html, eg.?

however looking at the ABI, 1.1.1-1 has removed a number of symbols, which however all start with two underscores and are not accessible via the headers (see attached diff of symbols).

Not too sure if this calls for a SONAME bump, what's your advice?

Hm. Ah, I was reading your diff backwards. Normally - is for the
old/previous version, and + for the new stuff. ;-)

I'd say, then, that a SONAME bump is not warranted. But it would be very
useful if, given the small number of reverse dependencies, you would
unpack all their .debs for amd64 or i386, and check with /usr/bin/nm
that none of the __PHYSFS_* symbols are referenced. Stefan, Barry, could
either of you check that?

OTOH, this will mean diverting from upstream, so you may want to contact
them and see what they think. If cross-distro compatibility is a concern, you could ship a libphysfs-1.1-0 -> libphysfs-1.0-0 symlinks, dunno.

So, actions: the nm check, and contacting upstream to see if they have
something to say as to why the SONAME bump is needed (changed strutcs,
or whatever).


I've e-mailed upstream.  I hope they are responsive.


Barry deFreese

Reply to: