Dave Beckett <d...@dajobe.org> writes: > >>From the stack trace I can see a problem - the librdf is calling the old > rasqal ABI (0.9.16) in librasqal.so.1 rather than the new (0.9.17) in > librasqal.so.2. (Assuming these are redland librdf 1.0.10 and rasqal librdf > 0.9.17) > > redland 1.0.10 (librdf.so.0) was packaged to link with the new rasqal 0.9.17 > (librasqal.so.2) and so the above stack trace should not be possible, unless > I've got the shared lib/package dependencies wrong.
Let's check the reporter's versions: ii librasqal1 0.9.16-2 Rasqal RDF query library ii librdf0 1.0.10-1 Redland Resource Description Frame Hm. Let's check the package dependencies: Package: librdf0 Source: redland Version: 1.0.10-1 Architecture: i386 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3), libdb4.8, libltdl7 (>= 2.2.6b), libraptor1 (>= 1.4.19), librasqal2 (>= 0.9.17) We see that ardour links against librasqal1, while librdf0 links against librasqal2. This indicates a problems with transitive dependencies of the rasqal package: Both versions are loaded into the address space of the application, probably with colliding symbols. > Maybe librasqal2 should conflict with librasqal1. With the conflicts you prevent both libraries to be co-installed and cause potentially a difficult transition for the 'testing' migration. Have you analyzed how many packages are affected by this? All reverse dependencies on librasqal1 need to be transitioned. If this affects a larger portion of packages, this might warrant a discussion on debian-release or debian-devel. The most elegant solution i see here would be to introduce symbol versioning in the librasqal package so that applications that have not been transitioned yet to librasqal2 package can easily co-exist. BTW, I'm currently doing essentially the same in the ffmpeg package atm. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
