On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:58:02PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Is there an statement in Debian Policy that explicitly requires higher > > > version of a shared library package to be backwards-binary-compatible > > > with previous versions of the same package? > > > > > > I mean, is a situation when after library package upgrade local > > > binaries stops working because of missing symbols, by definition an RC > > > bug against library package? Or is depends on particular situation? > > > > Yes, it's an RC bug. If you break the API and/or ABI, you need to change > > the package name and the SONAME. > > > > See e.g. > > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html > > Is libpkg-guide an official debian document these days? > If not, maybe API/ABI-keep requirement should be added to Policy?
I don't think there is a reason to change Policy. If a package breaks other packages it's considered an RC bug. Since shared libraries are meant to be used through API and ABI, a breakage of those means breaking other packages. The libpkg-guide has good guidelines on how to prevent such, i.e. changing SONAME and package name. Hauke
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
