Le sam. 4 janv. 2025 à 13:35, Nicholas Guriev <nicho...@guriev.su> a écrit :
> On 04.01.2025 03:26:56 MSK you wrote: > > - adaparse could be compiled and distributed (along with a manpage and > > docs/cli.md) > > My first priority was to provide the shared library. I didn't want the > binary > was available in $PATH when dependent packages were installed. So there > are > two options: > 1) either install adaparse into a private directory like /usr/libexec; > 2) or place it in separate -bin package. > > Both variants rise questions of whether this testing tool is really useful > at > run-time. And to give preference to one of the options, we need to > understand > how this binary will be used. > OK, let's not package it for now. Another concern is the ABI compatibility issue. **As far as I know**: In debian, only a major soname bump is eligible for a library transition (recompiling reverse build-deps). However in C++ there is no guarantee that a 2.9.1 > 2.9.2 update will be ABI-compatible, and Upstream doesn't seem to be paying any kind of attention to it. A simple way to address this issue is to manage a debian-specific soname version (date-based, or index-based), that is incremented with each update of libadaxx.so. This could be improved by using an external tool like abi-compliance-checker, though I'm not sure it works perfectly. Ideally Upstream should commit to maintain ABI-compatibility in the soname version, but it seems they're pushing to embed the library instead, so they probably won't support that. Jérémy
