Bug#634052: transition: glew
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:18:20 +0200
Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> On 2011-07-16 15:15, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:48:57 +0200
> > Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> 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
> >
>
> Thanks for checking up on that. Usually symbols like that are
> intended as private symbols; perhaps upstream or you could work
> upstream on hiding these symbols so they can rename/remove them
> without having to bump the SONAME.
>
> I believe gcc's -fvisability or a linker script ought to do the trick.
Indeed, upstream confirmed that a symbol type fix was reason to
change the soname.
Joost
--
Joost Yervante Damad - http://damad.be/joost/
Reply to: