"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" writes:

> On Tuesday 12 July 2011 14:03:53 Alberto Luaces wrote:
>> since I don't yet know so much about those ABI tricks, I think it's
>> better not to use symbol files at the moment.
>
> According to Paul Wise, a (despite his name ;)) knowledgeable Debian 
> Developer, when SONAME versions are more frequent than Debian releases (e.g. 
> your package's name always change from Debian 5 to Debian 6 and so on), 
> symbols are not to be used.
>
> The interesting messages (though you can read the whole threads, they are 
> small and informative):
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00369.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00371.html
>

Yes, there is a lot of good information there. Thanks for the
pointer. Indeed, since OSG soname is bumped so many times a year, the
symbol file is not that useful... Nevertheless, the symbol file, even if
not distributed with the package — but only for our internal purposes —
can be useful for us to know if that bump is really needed. That could
diminish the upload overhead, because less new package names are
generated, I guess.

As an example, today in the mailing list a question was raised: whether
the soname should be bumped after a template definition modification.

>
>
>> > I'll keep an eye on GDAL in the near future, to see if some -revision
>> > or - nmu fixes the libjpeg62 dependency issue, to allow us to build and
>> > upload OSG.
>
> Second attempt...
>

It seems it is working, let's see how the armel build ends. Good work!

Regards,

-- 
Alberto


_______________________________________________
Pkg-osg-devel mailing list
Pkg-osg-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-osg-devel

Reply via email to