On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:06:16 +0900 "Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does > > NOT require a SONAME bump. > > We are not talking about SONAME bumps, but shlib bumps. OK, I've had a quite chat with Suno on IRC and cleared up the confusion in my own mind - basically, some maintainers are are not doing something that I do by second nature - managing the shlibdeps when a new symbol is added. I add the details to the symbols file and sort out the shlibs without even thinking of the two as separate. What everyone is thinking of as an shlib bump is something I simply do as part of "adding a symbol" the proper way. Hence, my original supposition that "adding a new symbol properly does not require a SONAME bump" - which was correct but not relevant here. I see the division now. "Adding a symbol" in my mind included the "shlib bump" as a direct and inevitable consequence. Ah well. > > I doubt that - merely adding a new symbol is NOT a bug, let alone > > release-critical. > > Right, but not bumping shlibs at the same time is an RC bug AFAIK. OK, I've got that now. Sorry for the noise. Maybe this is just because I'm also upstream for my libraries and this sort of thing comes naturally, without even thinking of it as a separate step. I just didn't consider that people would do something as crazy as only do half a change. I'm not afraid of saying I got this bit wrong but I hope it's clearer now. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgpUnpUd0djfp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
