Hi, On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 13:00 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > I think we won't touch the soname, since we usually try to not > deviate from what upstream uses but only change the package > name and add conflicts against old package name... > (This solves packaged software upgrades, but leaves self-compiled > binaries out in the cold.) > Same as was done last time the ABI broke in similar way.
This seems very reasonable. Do you agree with my assessment, that libical *is* actually ABI-stable now and should not break compatibility in future versions, even if new entries are added to the various enums? Best regards Alexander Kurtz
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
