Hi Paul,
hard to answer. Imho you miss nothing, but:
* there was this long thread about the sense or non-sense of creating
symbols for c++ libs. I'm in favour of doing so, but i also see the
arguments from the other side. To be honest: I'm not that into symbols
too, even after four or five years - but they are great to detect
changes that imply a abi or api bump.
I would consider the additional symbols harmless - if a application is
not compiled against the changed lib, nothing changes - both symbols are
used only internal but are exposed - so the functionality could be used
in applications that use the library. I'm not sure if both symbols
should be exposed, but i would leave that to upstream. I'm a big fan of
not expose things - some of the LXQt main developers think otherwise. So
i have to dive into this within the upcoming release cycle. The only
thing for buster is: It will do no harm.
The version is right: It will be the version that is available for the
lifetime of buster. so 0.14.1~ is right when one consider possible
backports. 1-9~ will trigger rightfully a lintian warning about the
version - it doesn't really matter when the symbols are introduced, the
only thing that matters is that the lib in the wild really contains
these symbols.
Cheers Alf
