Re: Help with resolving an issue with wxwidgets3.2
Hi Scott
On 2022-12-12 22:10:51 -0500, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2022, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Scott" == Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> writes:
> >
> > Scott> Would Option 1, which was "Rebuild wxWidgets and then binNMU
> > Scott> all packages that link with libwx_gtk3u_gl library (about a
> > Scott> dozen packages)." be acceptable? We could also add
> > Scott> appropriate "Breaks" to the library package containing the gl
> > Scott> library.
> >
> > There are times in the past (I'm thinking c++ abi transitions) wher.e
> > we've changed the name of the shlibs package but not of the soname.
> > So you end up overriding lintian because your shlib package does not
> > match the soname exactly.
> > You need to update your symbols or shlibs files to depend on the new
> > shlibs package name.
> > It complicates the Debian packaging a bit, and you probably end up
> > carrying the complexity,
> > but you don't need to diverge from soname, and if you change build
> > options in the future you may need to do it again.
> > Would an option like this work for both sides?
>
> Yes, that's originally what I planned to do, but Olly suggested that
> changing the shlib package name without changing the library soname might be
> against policy? This approach would be okay with me, though. As an aside,
> wx's shlib package names already don't match the soname exactly. (Not sure
> of the history there, but they either never have, or haven't for a long
> time.)
In this case, changing the package name should be enough. I'd treat it
similar to the v5 "transitions" that we had to do with GCC 5 and C++
libraries.
What's the status? Time is running short.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: