On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:07:56 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 21:01:21 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:25:45PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
>>>>we (upstream) will make sure they are binary compatible.
>>>>all symbols added since jack-0.116 are mandated to be weak.
>>>>if there are any issues with binary compatibility these are bugs.
>>> Sounds like a promise of a stable API.
>>> How about then bumping the API from 0 to 1?
>> if you mean the SONAME, then you would require rebuilding all
>> applications for no reason. There is absolutely no need for this.
> Then packages could depend unversioned on libjack1, instead of versioned
> on libjack0 >= 0.116.0.

This would be terribly confusing, as it indicates that the SONAME has
been bumped which is not the case.

> That would make it possible to offer alternative jackd implementations:
> Alternative implementations simply should not provide a *-dev package,
> to enforce build-depending against the "main" jackd implementation (for
> now that means jakcd1, might change to a different one in the future).
> I suspect that is the simplest approach to multiple jack implementations
> in Debian.

The issue with the various flavors of the *-dev package is the least
problem here. Moreover, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Quite
the contrary, I think that we need to allow multiple *-dev packages,
because some implementation might provide some extra, optional feature
that is only declared in an implementation specific header.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to