On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James <wirel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > Rich Freeman <rich0 <at> gentoo.org> writes: > >> They changed ABI without changing SONAME, which is an absolutely >> braid-dead thing for upstream to do, because it causes exactly this >> kind of breakage. > > Hmmmm. I've been working on my ebuild and end-o-mentoring quizes:: so in > that vein, should not the gentoo dev have bumped the gentoo rev numbers, or > did I miss-read the gentoo docs? >
So, first, this isn't really the forum to critique what the devs did, and I haven't spoken to them so I can't vouch for what their knowledge was at the time. Revbumping wouldn't help, and I'm pretty sure they did revbump it. The real issue was upstream, and I'd have to think about whether trying to fix it with a Gentoo patch would make things better or worse (it would make Gentoo different from everybody else, causing havoc if you had a proprietary binary you wanted to run and so on). Upstream really dropped the ball on this. When I'm updating packages I certainly don't carefully review all their ABIs and SONAMEs. Without some kind of automatic QA tool it would be a pretty big undertaking. I might go see if there is such a tool though, maybe that might be a good outcome if such a tool exists. > >> Everybody should be on the lookout for this update and carefully >> follow the forum post instructions to get through it. > > Again, in light of the dev-quizes, should not the package maintainer have > posted a news item prior/simultaneously to the new package release? Sure, if they had known about it. However, it sounds like they may have been as surprised as anybody else. I'd really like to see one right away though. The way openssl handles their ABIs really makes me think that libressl may not be the lesser evil. Sloppy SONAME handling causes all kinds of issues though and seeing it in high-profile projects like these is pretty concerning. > > Not trying to stir things up, just scratching many itches here on the > dev-quizes. Surely we are all human(oid) and thus forginving of our > comrades....even to the point of encouragement? > Of course. To err is human. To stabilize errs carries the death penalty. :) (I'm sure somebody will file that away for the next stable package I break.) -- Rich
