On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 at 10:44:27 +0100, Yuri Gribov wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin <w...@debian.org> wrote: >> > There is an interesting question about this: technically speaking, >> > removing exported symbols requires a soname bump. But one can say that >> > those symbols were never public and so they are not a part of ABI. >> > Fixing this upstream and bumping the soname should be easier rthough.. >> >> Right, TBH until now I haven't bothered with soname bumps when >> submitting visibility-related patches to upstream... > > If the symbols aren't considered to be public (the upstream developer > should know) then you shouldn't bump the SONAME, to avoid unnecessary > ABI transitions and disruption.
As a side note, in one of my other projects I tried scanning reverse package dependencies (recursively) to detect various symbol anomalies but that required amounts of storage and compute power well beyond of what a single workstation can provide... -Y
