Hi Werner, On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:12:46AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> I've read your very interesting mail at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html > What's your recommendation in the light of > http://freetype.org/freetype2/freetype-2.2.0.html Thanks for writing! I applaud the FreeType developers for making this effort to clean up the exported interface of the library. I know that proper handling of library ABIs has been an evolutionary process for most of us in the Free Software community, and by switching to -export-symbols, you guys appear to be ahead of the curve. At the same time, I'm dismayed that this page talks about how badly people's desktops are going to break, and *not* about a library soname change; and there's no indication that the -version-info "age" argument has been reset in freetype2 cvs; even though the -export-symbols change is being made *explicitly because you know people have been using private interfaces*. Appropriate or not, there is still software in the wild that's using these interfaces; intended or not, this software was built against headers that were installed by default by the *upstream* install target, and linked against libraries with the exact ABI that you as upstream exported. And GNU/Linux distributions are caught in the middle. We certainly didn't choose for this software to use internal freetype interfaces, but we will have to deal with the fact that an unspecified number of applications and libraries -- some that we distribute, perhaps many more installed on users' systems that we did not -- will break when they upgrade to the new freetype, simply because you opted not to change a number to acknowledge this reality. Please don't do this to us! It is not worth the pain to millions of users just to continue calling the library "libfreetype.so.6"! If for whatever reason you decide not to change the SONAME for 2.2, it will still be my recommendation to the Debian freetype maintainer that he change the *package* name; this is the only option that stands a chance at providing a smooth upgrade path for our users with a change in such an important library. Even then I'm not sure it's much of a chance. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
