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. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers