I don't think that checks for ABI stability should be at the discretion of the
package maintainer. Symbols files for C++ is the implementation which is not
ideal, but currently in use. The right thing to do is to replace these with
state of the art technology, like abi-check from Google, or liba
And I just noticed that Lunar SRU
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libcupsfilters/2.0~rc1-0ubuntu1.2
Which is another variant of the problems described before. gcc 12.3 is
being SRUed o Lunar and according to the report linked to that update
> The added symbols don't belong to the ABI, how
Le 17/06/2023 à 04:09, Seth Arnold a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 04:07:54PM +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
abi-compliance-checker and abigail. None of those experiments have ended up
sticking, though, for reasons which I'm not fully aware of. Alan Griffiths
and Michał Sawicz di
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 04:07:54PM +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
> abi-compliance-checker and abigail. None of those experiments have ended up
> sticking, though, for reasons which I'm not fully aware of. Alan Griffiths
> and Michał Sawicz did most of that investigation; I'll see if
On Fri, Jun 9 2023 at 12:10:07 -0700, Steve Langasek
wrote:
Hi Seb,
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
I would like to ask if there is any chance the MIR team would
reconsider
their position on the topic (at least until the day we have a
somewhat
working
Hey Steve,
Le 09/06/2023 à 21:10, Steve Langasek a écrit :
I wouldn't say that it doesn't protect you. It's a pain to set up initially
and as you note, you can even have to do further fix-ups as a result of
toolchain changes, as the set of template functions and other C++ sugar from
outside of
Hi Sebastien!
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> 1. We added a symbols to libcupsfilters as part of the MIR promotion
> https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libcupsfilters/commit/debian/libcupsfilters2.symbols?h=applied/ubuntu/devel&id=c5821fe0
>
> The build fa
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 20:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Hi Seb,
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > I would like to ask if there is any chance the MIR team would reconsider
> > their position on the topic (at least until the day we have a somewhat
> > working s
Hi Seb,
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> I would like to ask if there is any chance the MIR team would reconsider
> their position on the topic (at least until the day we have a somewhat
> working solution we can use)?
> which also included those types of change
Hey there,
We had been struggling with a few of those cases recently in desktop and
I was going to send an email about the topic then checking the archive I
found back that discussion that I had forgotten about.
I would like to ask if there is any chance the MIR team would reconsider
their p
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 04:32:29PM +0100, Ian Bruntlett wrote:
> Having access to the source code for packages would be helpful because
> sometimes, when chasing down a bug, access to source code is desirable.
If you add "deb-src" lines to your apt sources, you can download the
source for a packag
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:29:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I completely disagree. Replacing a somehow suboptimal check with no
> check is not an option.
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> IMHO symbols files should be mandatory for any new libraries
> int
> https://qt-kde-team.pages.debian.net/www/symbolfiles.html
Moved again, hopefully for the last time:
https://qt-kde-team.pages.debian.net/symbolfiles.html
--
Simon Quigley
tsimo...@ubuntu.com
tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC
5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4
signature.asc
Descri
Hello,
Putting on my Debian/Qt KDE Team hat.
On 05/18/2018 01:29 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> yes, and that is a very easy process using the pkg kde symbols helper.
> See https://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/symbolfiles.html, but this link is now
> not
> accessible anymore.
We just migrated the sit
Thank you for your reply.
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.05.2018 01:49, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> Symbols files aren't mentioned in the official MIR criteria at all. [2]
>
> This is wrong. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MIRTeam shows the list of things that
> the
> MIR team
Hi,
On 18 May 2018 at 00:49, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has recently been a question [1] about whether symbols files
> should be mandatory for C++ libraries in Ubuntu 'main'. I'm curious to
> hear what other Ubuntu developers think about this topic.
>
IMHO symbols files should be mandat
On 18.05.2018 14:13, Robie Basak wrote:
> I understand the general advantage of having symbols files. But in the
> specific case of C++ packages where upstream and Debian aren't caring
> for the symbols files, the public symbols aren't particularly well
> defined and we're maintaining a symbols fil
On 18.05.2018 01:49, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has recently been a question [1] about whether symbols files
> should be mandatory for C++ libraries in Ubuntu 'main'. I'm curious to
> hear what other Ubuntu developers think about this topic.
>
> Symbols files aren't mentioned in the offi
Hi Robie et al,
I have quite a bit of C experience and some C++ experience (not on Linux,
though) and I'm a volunteer tester. I haven't quite got the hang of github
(it is in my pile of things to learn).
Having access to the source code for packages would be helpful because
sometimes, when chasin
I understand the general advantage of having symbols files. But in the
specific case of C++ packages where upstream and Debian aren't caring
for the symbols files, the public symbols aren't particularly well
defined and we're maintaining a symbols file in Ubuntu as a delta, I
question whether it's
20 matches
Mail list logo
