On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:18:53PM -0700, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Steve is being unhelpful by not providing any patch for this RC bug
> he's filing. I think he's talking about a symptom not a root cause;
> binary incompatibility should really be addressed.
> I seem to recall changing libpkg-guide to address symbol versioning
> some time ago, and Steve should re-read the final version to point out
> what's missing from it.
Before filing this bug, I confirmed that my concerns still apply to the
current version. There are still numerous examples scattered throughout the
guide which imply that it's appropriate to use lib${soname}-dev as a dev
package name, which it is not.
I'm sorry that you consider this unhelpful, but I have no time to work on a
patch for this and think that it's better to not have the guide in a release
than to release the guide with a recommendation that makes releasing Debian
harder.
I also don't agree that this is just a symptom, any more than the use of
sonames in libraries is a "symptom" of improper handling of binary
compatibility. Even glibc took 6 sonames to stabilize.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
