m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Feb 05, Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > >> I'm just looking for ideas on what do here. Are you suggesting that >> libidn upstream should increment the shared library version to resolve >> this? > It's not, the solution would be to make the linker also emit unversioned > symbols and have them appear as the default ones so binaries will be > linked to these instead of the versioned ones. > But I have been unable to implement this.
Me too. I'm not sure that is even possible, quoting http://people.redhat.com/drepper/symbol-versioning: The implementation allows every DSO to either use versions for their symbols or not. Depending on whether the DSO an object is linked against had symbols or not, the reference to the DSO requires symbols or not. Possibly the two last "symbols" should be "versions", or else I cannot parse it. > The problem is that *you broke the ABI* and there is nothing else you > can do about it now since the versioned symbols cannot just be removed > now that other packages use them. 1) So what should be done now? Is 1.17 fine? 2) What should have been done from the beginning? Increment the shared library version? /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
