On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 20:39:29 +0100 James Cowgill wrote: > Hi, > > On 28/08/17 19:57, Anton Gladky wrote: > > Thanks all for discussion, explanations and investigations! > > > > @Rene, I propose to close this bug or to wait till upload of libreoffice. > > > > Next time, when the new coinutils version comes, I will let you know > > and coinmp should be tested against the new coinutils. Then it should > > probably be uploaded into the sid restricting in BD the minimal coinutils > > to guarantee the ABI compatibility like it done for all other dependent > > packages [1]. What do you think? > > > > [1] > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/coinor-cbc.git/tree/debian/control#n8 > > If there is an ABI break, you must rename the package. Trying to > restrict the build-dependencies will have no effect on the dependencies > at runtime which is where the ABI actually matters. >
Hello, I am a user who pinned this package to version 2.9.15-4, because of this bug. I took a look at the bug log, but I am afraid I did not understand the conclusion: is there an actual ABI break or is it just some weak symbols appearing/disappearing depending on different inlining decisions taken by different compiler versions? Will libreoffice/1:5.4.1-1 (currently in unstable and testing) break, if I upgrade coinor-libcoinutils3v5 from version 2.9.15-4 to version 2.10.14+repack1-1 ? Should this bug report be closed or kept open? Could you please clarify? Thanks for your time and patience! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp86Vyxpp6qf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
