On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:15:22 +0200, Bernhard R Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070607 18:04]:
>> > Reality is that this build must fail with a proper warning, so that
>> > the maintainer can decide if this is an excption and ok or whether
>> > he should cluebat upstream about a what soname means.
>> >
>> Reality is that libs export private symbols (not part of the API, and
>> not used by anything), and a private symbol disappearing shouldn't
>> force a SONAME change.
> Having a private symbol before was already a bug that the Debian
> mantainer should have caught.
This appears to be significantly different from the expectations
people have of developers -- I recall being told in no uncertain terms
that developers should not be expected to even know the language of the
packages they are packaging, far less understand what are “symbols” and
how to distinguish private ones from public ones, and how to version
them.
manoj
--
The executioner is, I hear, very expert, and my neck is very
slender. Anne Boleyn
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
