Hi Quanah, On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:35:50PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > OpenLDAP was compiled using 5.1.25, and the libs were updated to > 5.1.29. OpenLDAP *must* be recompiled against 5.1.29 as well in that > case. If that is done, then everything will move along happily.
> This is by design because Oracle/Sleepycat has made API changes in > patch level releases before. back-hdb/bdb *must* be compiled > against the exact BDB library version they are linked to. In this > case, the patch level does matter. On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:58:13PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Monday, December 12, 2011 10:54 PM +0100 Julien Cristau > <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > >If bdb breaks ABI then it needs to bump SONAME. If it doesn't then > >apps compiled against an earlier version must still work. A check for > >the patchlevel version is just broken. > Feel free to take that up with Oracle. ;) Until they fix their > development practices, the OpenLDAP behavior remains. Under the circumstances that seems a perfectly reasonable behavior for upstream to implement, but in Debian we hold libraries to a higher standard. If the library *does* change its ABI, the package name in Debian will change even if upstream fails to handle this, so the check within OpenLDAP is redundant; and in cases where Oracle releases a patchlevel release that doesn't change the ABI, this actively works against the packaging system. So I think the correct course of action here is to patch this check out of the Debian package. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
