On 2015-03-17 09:34, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 16/03/15 23:09, Niels Thykier wrote: >> - Mind you, as I understand Simon (in his response to my mail), we >> seem to already have lost that ability in 2007 when we stopped >> shipping glib2.12. > > Actually I understand his message to say the opposite. GLib 2.42 is API > and ABI compatible with GLib 2.12, which means we are compatible with > the LSB in that regard. Binaries that want to be LSB compatible need to > limit themselves to the symbols from GLib 2.12 specified in the LSB. > This is the same as for libjpeg-turbo. It is API and ABI compatible with > libjpeg62. So software that was LSB compatible before will still be. >
I suspect you misunderstand this part of the debate. We already concluded that libjpeg-turbo is ABI compliant with the LSB specs. I believe Bill's argument was that to build truly LSB compliant software, we would need to have the old version to ensure FTBFS to avoid accidental use of newer features. My argument is that given we do not have that "hard limiter" on GLib any more (it also have non-LSB symbols/APIs), we already lost this ability in general to ensure that a given piece of software compiled in Debian will be 100% LSB compliant by just relying on simple FTBFS as test mechanism. > So there should be problem with us only shipping libjpeg-turbo. > > Emilio The above sentence seems to be missing a word, which makes it rather ambiguous. :) Though based on your arguments, I will assume you mean "there should be /no/ problem with...". Thanks, ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
