Bug#634052: transition: glew
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:48:57 +0200
Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> On 2011-07-16 14:10, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:53:03 +0200
> > Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Package: release.debian.org
> >> Severity: normal
> >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> >> Usertags: transition
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Transition bug for glew; Joost can you follow up if there are any
> >> thing we should be aware of?
> >
> > Normally they should all just build fine.
> >
> > Joost
> >
>
> I have checked the 1.5.8-3 -> 1.6.0-2 diff plus the news from
> upstream[1] and I get the feeling the SONAME bump is unneeded.
>
> in config/version:
> SO_MAJOR = $(GLEW_MAJOR).$(GLEW_MINOR)
> [...]
> LDFLAGS.SO = -shared -Wl,-soname=$(LIB.SONAME) [...]
>
> in config/Makefile.linux:
> LIB.SONAME = lib$(NAME).so.$(SO_MAJOR)
>
> I suspect that upstream got the SONAME part wrong here and
> $(GLEW_MINOR) is not supposed to be in the SONAME. Could you please
> ask your upstream if they really intended to do a SONAME bump for
> "minor bug fixes and some new extensions"?
There indeed are two symbols removed besides the usual additions:
-__glPNTrianglewesfATI
-__glPNTrianglewesiATI
That could be a valid reason I guess.
Joost
--
Joost Yervante Damad - http://damad.be/joost/
Reply to: