> Hi Nikita, > > Am Donnerstag, den 28.07.2005, 12:04 +0400 schrieb Nikita V. > > Youshchenko: > > > I talked to upstream and they > > > said, the ABI broke during the development unintentionally, but we > > > should better stick to libxml++2.6-2.10.0 and recompile the > > > dependent packages. > > > > Is 2.10 backward-compatable with 2.6 at ABI level ? > > As I said, the ABI broke unintentionally (and they were most agrieved), > so I guess there might be some glitches. Upstream advised us to > recompile the depending packages. I'm not sure at which stage the ABI > broke (from which version on).
If so, I believe soname should be changed, to meet Debian quality standards.
pgpwC4dRegZnF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
