On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:02:28 -0500 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have had a chance only to skim the discussion about this, but... > > I think it would be unwise for Debian to arbitrarily use a different > soname here than upstream and, presumably, everybody else. It's not arbitrary - the SONAME change has already broken compatibility within Debian. There is only on -dev package for either libarchive1 or the useless libarchive2 so rebuilding is not affected, as soon as libarchive-dev is updated, builds will use the library provided by the -dev. Packages build depend on libarchive-dev, Debian doesn't accept arbitrary binaries linked to libarchive2, we build from source via libarchive-dev. > It can > only hurt binary compatibility. Vorlon's suggestion of a symlink prevents that. I don't see any problem - we fix this within Debian because it is Debian that has been broken by a spurious SONAME bump of libarchive2. We will still have libarchive at v2.0.25, libarchive will still be linked via libarchive-dev, the build config has not changed. All that happens is that Debian retains a particular package name. Package names are up to Debian, not upstream. If the libarchive2 package had been installable alongside the libarchive1 package, this would have not been a problem but it would still have been the wrong thing to do, IMHO. libarchive 2.0.25 could possibly have made it into Etch if GNU libtool conventions had been followed in the SONAME. > Even if upstream bumped soname unnecessarily, I think the proper thing > to do is maintain compatibility with upstream and everyone else. Then this bug needs to be fixed ASAP because libarchive2 HAS broken Debian and the breakage is delaying uploads of other packages. I cannot build against libarchive at the moment and I cannot upload my own package update because of this bug. What is your proposed fix for this blocking bug? I see no reason to be concerned about upstream or external compatibility - this is an issue arising from a Debian package being renamed in Debian and breaking the builds of Debian packages due to an error in the Debian packaging. In the absence of a fix for this bug, I still propose to upload the NMU so that Debian can be fixed. With Vorlon's advice, libarchive2 will still exist as a dummy package so I really don't see any problems. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp5UZpya53YA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
