On 2020-10-05 15:18:41, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: severity -1 important > control: reassign -1 src:sane-backends > control: retitle -1 sane-backends: dropped unused symbols without changing > SONAME > > > Hello Vincent and Sebastian > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 03:48:26 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote: > > Control: clone -1 -2 > > Control: reassign -2 libsane1 1.0.31-2 > > Control: retitle -2 libsane1: broke ABI > > > > On 2020-10-04 18:03:30 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > Package: libsane > > > Version: 1.0.31-2 > > > Severity: grave > > > > > > From 1.0.31-1~experimental1: > > > > > > * debian/libsane1.symbols: > > > - Remove 7 not longer available symbols. > > > > > > Hence provinding libsane that depends on libsane1 with a different ABI > > > is wrong. > > > > Not just libsane is wrong, but libsane1 (which contains the library > > itself) too (at least for programs compiled by users). > > > > Seriously? > > this is the list of "dropped symbols" > > - testing_append_commands_node@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_known_commands_input_failed@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_last_known_seq@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_record_backend@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_xml_doc@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_xml_next_tx_node@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_xml_path@Base 1.0.29
Don't shoot the messanger. It was Jörg who claimed there was an ABI break. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=908681#177 Cheers > > > Please find a single reference of something in the archive, or outside the > archive, that ever used > part of such (not meant to be exported) API. > > The *bug* was to export them in the previous version, not to remove them, > because meant to be internal symbols. > > We had other references in the archive history, where symbols incorrectly > exposed were dropped without > the need to change the ABI. > > We discussed many times already, few people (including I guess the sponsor > for that particular upload), and at least > 3 other DDs agreeded that there was no need to change the SONAME just because > of something that was not really > used anywhere in the world, included self-compiled stuff. > > All the RFS bugs for sane-backends are public, you can find lots of > discussion about the topic, and help > in better developing the package. > > I think this is a non-issue, I would like to have some real bugs before > talking about the Sex Of Angels... [1] > > I also think its better have one single bug, instead of having two of them, > for the very same source package. > > > (sorry for the Italian reference :) ) > [1] https://www.englishforums.com/English/SexOfAngels/kxpgm/post.htm > > just my .02$ > > Gianfranco > > > -- > > Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> > > 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> > > Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) > > > > -- Sebastian Ramacher
