Jerry James wrote: > Here's something I didn't expect from the new ABI gate.
Why did you not expect it? I pointed out this exact issue on January 13, right after this change was announced, and ~5 days before it was implemented without anybody responding to my objection: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1810#comment-488673 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UVMM7O4OEGCNMZ47HN7QYPQDIV2IJZFR/ I wrote there: > Uh, `dist.abicheck` produces a lot of false positives on: > > * libraries that are internal and that nothing should depend on (e.g., in > QupZilla, package `qupzilla`), ^ That's exactly the case we are in here. ^ > * APIs explicitly documented as "private, can change at any version", as > common in all Qt modules (e.g., in QtWebEngine, package > `qt5-qtwebengine`). > > My packages often fail `dist.abicheck`. It is absolutely not realistic to > expect it to pass for all updates. Where do I need to send such information next time for people to actually READ it? I sent it both to the FESCo ticket and to the mailing list! Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
