On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:51:56AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:33:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:45:05AM +0100, Loic Minier wrote: > > > Anyway, your preferred option seems saner, and quite doable given the > > > limited amount of API / ABI changes as listed by mdz.
> > Other symbols removed since 2.1.7, btw: > > [lots] > I'm afraid I probably won't find time to do an exhaustive search, but I > think it would be worthwhile to directly test each package depending on > libfreetype6 and find the set of now-missing symbols which are important in > Debian. Even if it isn't practical for us to restore 100% compatibility > with 2.1.7, we may be able to achieve something which is close enough, with > a relatively small deltia to 2.1.10. For the record, I have a problem with "close enough" when it comes to ABIs of libraries as exported in the library's own header files. When upstreams break an ABI without changing the soname, it breaks local binaries, which is bad; when Debian follows suit and leaves the ABI broken without changing the package name, it breaks local packages, which (IMHO) is worse. > > Even worse, though, is the number of symbols *added* -- 75 new symbols, vs. > > 32 removed. Since the maintainer did not bump the shlibs when uploading, > > either, there's no way to determine which packages are using the new ABI > > except by looking at upload dates. > Anything which has started using new symbols from 2.1.10 is extremely likely > to still be API-compatible with previous versions, and can simply be > recompiled, no? Well, one known exception is libcairo, which has explicitly added a dependency on the newer libfreetype6-dev. Any other packages, if they exist, are lost in the muddle of new packages that have already been let into testing. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
