On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 13:58:01 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Oh, that seems reasonable. This seems to have been discussed recently
on the debian-policy list (search for I don't think there's much gain
in relaxing this):
http://bugs.debian.org/556015#141
Ludovico Gardenghi wrote:
* Add patch for fixing wrong SONAME for libraries. -version-number had
been used instead of version-info, this gave incorrect SONAMEs and broke
compatibility between this version and the previous ones (althought there
is no actual ABI
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:06:30 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
* Add patch for fixing wrong SONAME for libraries. -version-number had
been used instead of version-info, this gave incorrect SONAMEs and
broke
compatibility between this version and the previous ones (althought
Ludovico Gardenghi wrote:
I'm not sure there is a really
clean way to deal with this without uselessly breaking backward
compatibility. It seemed cleaner than keeping 3:1:0 and creating
symlinks .so.2 - .so.3 or similar.
Makes sense.
Uhm, ok. I
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 23:43:03 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ping? I've had vde2 on hold because of this bug for several months
now. IMHO if the package in experimental is not being maintained, it
should be removed --- it will still be available from
snapshot.debian.org.
Thanks
Hi Ludovico,
Ludovico Gardenghi wrote:
Thanks for the report and sorry for the delay.
No problem and glad to hear from you.
Indeed the conflict will be needed with the next release, as we're
much probably going to move libvdeplug.so from the -dev package to the
shared library one
That
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:34:31 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Indeed the conflict will be needed with the next release, as we're
much probably going to move libvdeplug.so from the -dev package to the
shared library one
That violates policy ยง8.1 Run-time shared libraries and would make
Ludovico Gardenghi wrote:
(In any case, I still can't figure out what should be the *proper* way
for a program for dlopening a .so while providing the version number...
should it loop over all the (infinite :-)) possible SONAMEs who offer
compatibility for the needed interface version?
Ah!
8 matches
Mail list logo
