On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:48:03PM +0100, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > Philipp Kern a écrit : >> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 02:55:15PM +0100, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: >>> I also filed bug #458728 asking a rebuild of evolution and bug #458729 >>> asking a rebuild of gnome-pilot.
>> You conclude in the bug reports that the API has not changed, which is >> fine and that the ABI probably has not changed too. Well, then a SONAME >> bump is wrong, if that is the case. > I think it is an error from upstream. > I don't think it would have been a good idea to revert the patch from > upstream and keep the SONAME just to simplify Debian dependencies. No, but you could keep the same package name to ease upgrades, bump the shlibs, and provide a backwards-compatible symlink for libpisync.so.0 -> libpisync.so.1. C.f. <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/12/msg00269.html>, <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/12/msg00060.html> for discussion of the similar problem in boost. I confirm that there are no symbols added or removed between libpisync0 and libpisync1. I haven't checked that their arguments are unchanged, but if they are, I really would recommend rolling back the package name and providing this sort of compatibility shim, maintaining compatibility both with third-party binaries and with pre-existing Debian binary packages. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
