* Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> [120127 22:30]: > > Symbol files are nice if you have a upstream who doesn't always take > > binary compatibility that serious (which is probably the case for 75% of > > upstreamers). Then you have a list that helps you finding out. > > This is probably the best summary of why a symbols file might be useful. > It helps catch cases where ABI compatibility is not maintained without > people being aware that this broke.
On the other hand a symbols file can also make situations worse if the ABI changes and dpkg-gensymbols does not catch this case, as the dependencies are less strict then. > > (and then of course there is the usual bits and pieces about why symbol > > files are useful) > > I think this is probably the summary of my previous message: a lot of > those places don't seem as useful for C++ as for C, because ABI > compatibility is a lot more complex (and in some ways a lot harder to > maintain), so the equivalent of a shlibs bump is probably more frequently > the right thing to do. I think this argument can also mean that symbols files are more useful for C++ than for C: For C there are many ways to break the ABI incompatibly and compatibly without anything visible at symbol level. As C++ is more likely to show differences at symbol level in this cases the danger of cases where dpkg-symbols introduces wrong dependencies might be lower with C++. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128124957.ga2...@server.brlink.eu