Control: tags -1 wontfix Hi,
(I'm writing this with my collaborator hat on.) You are right that upstream's recommendation and Debian's policy of using system libraries do not fit well together. Upstream wants to pin a specific abseil version, while Debian prefers to link against the packaged library instead of shipping an embedded copy. That said, mozc has been built against the system abseil for quite a long time now. As you expected, some abseil updates did break mozc in that period. Each time, we followed the change on a best-effort basis and the package kept working. Given this, I no longer see a strong enough reason to go back to bundling abseil. I think it is fine to keep using the system library for now. If abseil transitions start to cause problems that we cannot handle in a reasonable time, it might be better to reconsider. Thanks for raising this. Best regards, On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:11:40 +0100 Sebastien Bacher <[email protected]> wrote: > Package: mozc > Version: 2.26.4220.100+dfsg-1 > > Recently The patch 0007-Update-src-base-absl.gyp.patch was added to > use abseil as a shared library. It's something upstream recommended > against on https://github.com/google/mozc/issues/490 > ' For abseil, it's frequently updated, so we'd like to use the > specific version.' > > Currently libabseil doesn't have a stable ABI as indicated in that > packaging commit > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/abseil/-/commit/c52743b9 > > Depending on a library which is going to change soname which every > upload is likely to create stability issue for mozc, wouldn't it make > sense to stick to a test version as recommended upstream? > > Thanks, > > >
