Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> (2014-10-30): > Control: severity 767230 serious > > > > Anyway: it seems that I've actually started a transition after the > > transition freeze :/ > > > > Looking through the diff between the version of libotr in testing vs. > the version in sid. I saw no obvious ABI / API breakage myself - that > said I would certainly would not mind a second (third?) reviewer > reviewing this assertion though. Preferably one who knows the C ABI > rules by heart.
I saw new symbols, no changed ones, but I certainly don't match your last sentence. > > Plan A -- ship Jessie with libotr 4.1, drop the version check temporarily > > ========================================================================= > > > > 1. Patch libotr to loosen this version check on Jessie: assuming the > > "no API/ABI break" assumption is true, this should work just fine. > > I suspect this will be the least intrusive method assuming the "no > ABI/API" assertion holds. > > > 2. For Jessie+1, re-add the version check, and get proper shlibs > > support so that we get proper transition handling next time. > > > > As I recall, we generally prefer libraries do not have unnecessary > "strictly equal runtime version checks", since they tend to be wrong. > Proper use of shlibs (or symbols) and SONAME bumping (with package > renaming) makes such checks redundant (for Debian maintained reverse > dependencies). Yeah, Julien mentioned this on IRC, readding that check would likely be a bad idea. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
