On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:46:14PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes:
> > 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. > Note that ABI in this context has to encompass the on-disk format as well, > which I suspect Steve meant but which is worth saying explicitly, since my > guess would be that's where OpenLDAP ran into problems in the past that > caused this check to be added. Right, I tried to make this clear in the patch description: OpenLDAP upstream conservatively assumes that any change to the version number of libdb can result in an API-breaking change that could impact the database. [...] Do you think that's sufficient, or should I clarify this further? -- 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
