Re: Request to review and upload libvhdi_20201018-1
Hi Samuel,
Samuel Henrique:
> FTR, Francisco correctly pointed out to me that upstream has not bumped SONAME.
> This means we have an issue at hand here, upstream removed interfaces
> and should have bumped its API, we as the Debian maintainers can
> introduce a "distro specific" new version (do the bump ourselves) but
> that is not recommended and should only be the last resort[0].
>
> Our ideal way forward here is contacting upstream, exposing the issue
> and asking for a new release with the correct bump, especially since
> this is likely to be an oversight by them.
>
> Can you open an issue on their issue tracker?
sure, it's open: https://github.com/libyal/libvhdi/issues/15
>
>> For reference:
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html
>
> An extra reference which is very on point to this issue:
> https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#sonameapiabi
> https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#upstreamconcerns
>
> [0] I can see one argument being made that we could avoid the distro
> bump even by rebuilding the rdeps (just like a transition) but without
> the bump, thus basically "hiding" the backwards compatibility
> breakage, the risk here being that things built outside our official
> repos might inadvertently break when linked against the new package.
> In the end, if upstream does not provide a new release with a bump, we
> will have to evaluate which will be the alternative with less
> downsides.
>
> Regards,
>
>
Regards,
--
Francisco Vilmar Cardoso Ruviaro <francisco.ruviaro@riseup.net>
4096R: 1B8C F656 EF3B 8447 2F48 F0E7 82FB F706 0B2F 7D00
Reply to: