Going a little bit back to the soname question: > b) libclang-dpcpp21 > > Was this suffix supposed to have a git hash? > > /usr/lib/llvm-dpcpp-21/lib/libclang.so.21.0.0git
> $ objdump -x usr/lib/llvm-dpcpp-21/lib/libclang.so.21.0.0dpcpp6.2.0 | grep > SONAME > SONAME libclang.so.21.0dpcpp6.2.0 I see you picked a very specific dpcpp version suffix. Do you know if libclang-dpcpp21 break ABI by going dpcpp6.2.0 to dpcpp6.3.0, or even just dpcpp6.2.1? Since there is no symbols file, this question is about how to deal with such breakages if the package name is just libclang-dpcpp21, and not libclang-dpcpp21dpcpp6.2.0 or something like that. We want to avoid if possible the classic bug of the library increasing version and removing a symbol, and a reverse dependency not having been updated yet, and fail with a crash saying "unknown symbol". This is not a blocker, as it can be fixed when the time of such breakage arrives, and I understand you may not know enough about the upstream releases yet to have an answer. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2130186 Title: [needs-packaging] intel-dpcpp To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2130186/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
