Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 25 Oct 2011 00:56:24 +0200, a écrit : > On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:37:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 25 Oct 2011 00:31:43 +0200, a écrit : > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:44:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 21 Oct 2011 10:27:03 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > > __dir_unlink@Base 2.11 > > > > > > __exec_exec@Base 2.11 > > > > > > + __exec_exec_file_name@Base 2.13-21+ts.0 > > > > > > > > Ah, do your changes add some RPCs? Then that part is expected. The > > > > symbols stuff is precisely meant to catch such changes. > > > > > > (Does dh_makeshlibs run dpkg-gensymbols with -c2? Otherwise it wouldn't > > > stop due to this, as I understand its documentation?) > > > > I don't think it does. > > Hmm, should it do so? Or are you manually watching the glibc build > process for such changes, or how does this work? (Or how should it > work?)
IIRC the idea is that new symbols are not a problem. Adding them can be overlooked, that'll just produce dependencies which could be less tight (by expressing when exactly the symbols were introduced) > > > I don't really like > > > libmachuser and libhurduser. All code using these should instead > > > explicitly create these as needed and link against its own copies. > > > > Well, that'd be a tedious thing to integrate in all applications which > > we port to native interfaces of the Hurd. > > Well, I don't think so. As you're saying, it only concerns packages > using native interface (which are few), and integrating MIG into their > build process should be (made) easy. Integrating anything in a build process is quite often a pain. > > > > > Now, the question is whether the RPC user stubs should get Debian > > > > > symbol > > > > > versioning at all, or if they're simply a best-effort thing? > > > > > > > > Making them a best-effort would mean that some programs using them would > > > > get broken when they are removed. We don't really want that :) > > > > > > Then we really have to revert dd48e23f43730038df4bb191e7acc47a4ab73c69? > > > > Why? > > (To restore the symbols.) Again, why? :) > > > But I really hope (and expect) that nobody has been using these functions > > > anymore (with their bogus names), for years already. > > > > Then that's fine. > > ... but only guessing. (Even if I strongly do believe so.) Then let's just check and be done with guesswork. > > Debian is a binary distribution. We can check, but I doubt any Debian > > binary package uses these symbols, so we can simply drop them entirely. > > ... but only guessing. (Even if I strongly do believe so.) But good > enough for my taste. But what to do with the problem that on some hosts > (with older gnumach-dev package, as yours), the xxx_cpu_something RPCs > will re-appear? Should we explicitly set versioned build-depends (lower > and upper bound) for gnumach-dev and hurd-dev when such changes have been > done, to force the specific versions? For instance, yes. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
