On 2014-01-26 01:15, Hilko Bengen wrote: > * Emmanuel Bourg: > >> Would it be possible to upgrade the existing icu4j package >> instead? japi-compliance-checked reports a compatibility of 80%. >> Here are the issues found by clirr: >> >> ERROR: 8001: com.ibm.icu.impl.ByteBuffer: Class >> com.ibm.icu.impl.ByteBuffer removed [...] > > To me, this looks like a significant, backward-incompatible changes > in the API. In the world of shared libraries, this kind of stuff > makes changes to the SONAME necessary. > > That being said, it might be possible to package a newer version > of icu4j instead (I haven't tried building Lucene4 against anything > newer than 49.1.) Upstream is at 52.1 right now. > > Cheers, -Hilko > >
Hi, Note that all the mentioned classes seem to be in an "impl" package. Sometimes upstream only remove/change implementation details but keep the external API - this could be such a case. That said, I agree that such implementation details could still have been used by rdeps and therefore it would be prudent to do the Java eqv. of an "ABI" bump for a C library. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
