Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > Looks like you just found an RC bug in libflac++6 - includes new > > symbols in version 1.2.1-1 according to mole but the shlibs does not > > depend on that version: > > That is not a bug - the package building against it merely has to > require that version.
That is. > The bug only arises if symbols are removed or function prototypes are > changed in existing symbols. Wrong. > > Please file a bug about this. > > Please don't - it is not a bug. Please do. > If it was, we'd be on libglib.so.7787.0.0 by now. You *do* understand the concept of SONAME and shlibs, right? You *do* understand that those are different things, right? Given some RC bugs against some of your packages, I start doubting it. Too bad you're being so vocal on this list, and so self-confident. > > Hopefully more libraries will adopt the new dpkg symbols stuff so > > that this can be detected and fixed more often. > > The fix is only necessary if the symbol has CHANGED - added symbols > can be managed perfectly well without a SONAME bump. Again, wrong. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
