Julien Cristau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 16:27:13 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > >> For qpdf, this is a new upstream version that is binary compatible with >> the old one. qpdf is isolated in the dependency tree (no other packages >> depend on it), and I am upstream, so I can definitely vouch for the fact >> that the changes were relatively minor and should be very safe. >> > I see new API but no shlibs bump?
New API doesn't require a shlibs bump. Changed or removed API requires a shlibs bump. 2.2.0 adds several new functions. The only function that changed incompatibly was QPDFWriter::disableIncompatbleEncryption(float), which is a private method in the QPDFWriter object. No external code could call that method, so it can't be an unresolved symbol anywhere, so changing it does not require a shlibs bump. I use libtool to manage the shlibs. CURRENT,REVISION,AGE for 2.2.0 is 4,0,1. For 2.1.5, it was 3,4,0. This is consistent with new API having been added but no callable API having been changed or removed. To be absolutely certain, I built qpdf 2.1.5 from source, swapped its native libqpdf.so.3.0.4 with a copy of libqpdf.so.3.1.0 (renamed to libqpdf.os.3.4), and ran qpdf's very thorough test suite. The 2.1.5 qpdf's test suite passes when run with the 2.2.0 qpdf's shared library with the exception of the fact that the test suite reports incomplete coverage on the new API (which is, of course, not exercised by the 2.1.5 test suite). So (assuming you trust the thoroughness of the qpdf test suite), this also confirms that the ABI has not been broken. Are you seeing something different from this? If so, please let me know. I'm also interested to know what you're using to determine whether there are ABI changes. Thanks for being so thorough. -- Jay Berkenbilt <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100821090836.0290813736.qww314...@soup
