On April 23, 2018 10:03:45 PM UTC, "Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer" <perezme...@gmail.com> wrote: >If I understand correctly and, let's suppose, libQtFoo 5.10.2 is built >with a patched compat 12, then all applications rebuilt against 5.10.2 >would require at very least 5.10.2 even if symbols files allowed it to >depend on a minor version. > >If this is true is more or less what we are currently forcing with any >package that B-Ds on qtbase5-dev, although this would also mean that >packages that just B-D on qtbase5-private-dev will get the same >behavior (even if they do not list qtbase5-dev as a B-D and not taking >into account the qtbase-abi-x-y-z dependency). > >The only thing I don't know from this is iif symbols files dependency >info is totally discarded or the dependency on qtbase-abi-x-y-z would >still be get trough them for packages using private API. > >Niels: like in [1] we use dpkg-symbols' >"alternative-dependency.template" to track packages using private API. >As long as this is kept then the change, I think, should be ok. > >[1] ><https://salsa.debian.org/qt-kde-team/qt/qtbase/blob/master/debian/libqt5core5a.symbols>
If that's true, I doubt C++ symbols files are worth the trouble. Scott K
