To Require or not to Require?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 
> > Rightly or wrongly, upstream libfoo-1.0 has some additional utilities that
> > access the PrivateData.  Because the utilities are built from the libfoo
> > source, they can include the fooprivate.h header file and do this.  When
> > libfoo goes to 1.0.1, upstream changes the definition of PrivateData and
> > updates the utilities to work with the new datastructure.  Since the public
> > ABI stayed the same, the SONAME doesn't change and external programs
> > compiled against libfoo-1.0 continue to work but the utilities built as
> > a subpackage would be broken without stricter versioning.
> 
> Upstream can change the ABI as much as they want without bumping the 
> SONAME providing that the old interfaces are also present. It's entirely 
> possible to end up with a situation where external binaries built 
> against 1.0.1 won't run on 1.0.0 - the problem isn't limited to 
> subpackages.
> 
Sure.  But in this case, upstream isn't changing the public ABI.

It's a different level of mistake that's being practiced here.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110812/8302a180/attachment-0001.bin