On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:58:51AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Well, if this suggestion had come 6 months ago when this plan was laid out > on debian-devel, I think it would have been worth exploring. > > Though I would have still expected a large number of false-positives, > because there would be differences for any library using time_t-derived > types internally, *or* any filesystem access affected by LFS.
The idea was to compare the shared library binaries not the packages. > > Do the libxxxt64 in experimental supposed to use the new ABI ? Because it > > does not seem to be always the case. Is there a lintian test for that ? > > No. Earlier this had been the plan, but after discussing with Guillem we > realized that wasn't actually relevant so we revised the plan on the fly and > skipped dpkg in experimental. So the libraries in experimental are going to have an incompatible ABI with the ones in unstable ? > > Relying on dpkg-buildflags alone cannot be sufficient. > > I don't see any practical reason why not. Because packages are not required to use dpkg-buildflags. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
