Hello, On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 08:47:11PM +0100, Timo Röhling wrote: > Hi, > > * Andreas Henriksson <andr...@fatal.se> [2023-11-04 18:05]: > > I've previously suggested that maybe it would be better to set a > > debian-specific version (0d?), to avoid the theoretical situation that > > upstream one day ships a different ABI under the 1 so version. > Normally, I would agree, but in this particular case, Fedora already went > ahead and used SOVERSION 1 [1], so that version is "burned" and we might > just as well use it, too. > > [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lzfse/blob/rawhide/f/60.patch
Thanks for pointing this out! > > > I would welcome peoples input here on what you think is best from the > > debian perspective. Obviously we're going to be incompatible with > > everyone else. > I don't think that "incompatible" patch you linked creates much of an issue, > because very few (if any) other library consumers will do this rather > unusual dlopen() "soft linking" dance (normal linking with e.g. "gcc > -llzfse" will automatically use the proper SONAME); besides, it is easy to > patch in Debian packages and trivial to work around with "apt install > liblzfse-dev" for everyone else. > > I do have one remark, though: the idea behind SONAME/SOVERSION is that you > have a common name for all versions which are binary backwards compatible. > Using the full version liblzfse.so.1.0 instead of libltfse.so.1 (i.e., the > SONAME) in your patch defeats that purpose: it will only work with the exact > version 1.0, but not any (hypothetical) future, backwards-compatible > versions. I hope I understood you correctly and this now adresses your concerns: https://salsa.debian.org/bananas-team/asahi-fwextract/-/commit/bfbd6f53c2e8721b9457c3a37421280a8a86dbc8 Regards, Andreas Henriksson
