Hi Samuel, Samuel Henrique: > FTR, Francisco correctly pointed out to me that upstream has not bumped > SONAME. > This means we have an issue at hand here, upstream removed interfaces > and should have bumped its API, we as the Debian maintainers can > introduce a "distro specific" new version (do the bump ourselves) but > that is not recommended and should only be the last resort[0]. > > Our ideal way forward here is contacting upstream, exposing the issue > and asking for a new release with the correct bump, especially since > this is likely to be an oversight by them. > > Can you open an issue on their issue tracker?
sure, it's open: https://github.com/libyal/libvhdi/issues/15 > >> For reference: >> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html > > An extra reference which is very on point to this issue: > https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#sonameapiabi > https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#upstreamconcerns > > [0] I can see one argument being made that we could avoid the distro > bump even by rebuilding the rdeps (just like a transition) but without > the bump, thus basically "hiding" the backwards compatibility > breakage, the risk here being that things built outside our official > repos might inadvertently break when linked against the new package. > In the end, if upstream does not provide a new release with a bump, we > will have to evaluate which will be the alternative with less > downsides. > > Regards, > > Regards, -- Francisco Vilmar Cardoso Ruviaro <[email protected]> 4096R: 1B8C F656 EF3B 8447 2F48 F0E7 82FB F706 0B2F 7D00
