Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all >>> the existing packages that use libaspell. >>> >>> Was this really an ABI change in libaspell? If not, there was no >>> reason to make the change as I understand it. Were high-severity > bugs >>> filed on all the packages that depend on the library, requesting >>> recompiles? >>> >>> My understanding was that this upgrade would *not* normally change >>> library package names, so I'm wondering why this one did. The aspell >>> changelog doesn't contain anything illuminating. >> >> Uhh... >> >> aspell (0.60.3-2) unstable; urgency=low >> >> * debian/control: renamed libaspell15 to libaspell15c2 for the GCC 4.0 >> ABI change transition > > So, to repeat, since apparently my questions were not clear enough: > > 1: Was there an ABI change in libaspell15 itself? (In the > *programming* *source-level* interface?) Which functions interfaces > changed, and why were the changes not noted in the changelog?
Uhhhhh... no... http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00001.html It's a C++ library and the ABI changed due to being compiled with GCC 4.0. [Actually, although it's written in C++, AFAIK it only exports a C interface so the transition may not have been necessary. I only realized this yesterday though and I'm not entirely sure a non-transition would be safe.] > 2: Were high severity bugs filed on all the packages that depend on > the library, requesting recompiles? Not yet, presumably because a huge portion of unstable needs to undergo the transition anyway. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
