On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:28:26 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:34:23AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > So as long as there isn't 8.12 shipped with 8.13 intermixed I guess we can > > > take the risk. > > > > > I'm not willing to ignore this, sorry. > > At first I was tempted to say "and rightfully so". But upon further thought I > think we have other package with the same/similar problems. Just look at all > the packages that have a shared lib but no dev files at all, libs that are only > used by that one package itself. I doubt people worry about major version > numbers. BTW we also have libs with version 0.0.0 it seems. > If there are other public shared library packages that break ABI without changing package names then they're RC buggy. Right now libcitadel is the one I'm aware of. Private libs are something different, but since libcitadel-dev exists and there are reverse deps built from other source packages that does not apply here. > Now libcitadel is different because it has a corresponding -dev package, but > ttbomk no other package uses it and the citadel packages themselves do have a > hard dependency on the same version. > No they don't. libcitadel2 8.11-2 satisfies the 'libcitadel2 (>= 7.83)' dependency declared by e.g. the citadel-server package in squeeze. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature