On Čt, 2016-10-13 at 14:32 +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2016-10-13, Tom Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In other words, does the soname need to change?
> >
> The soname did not change. But packages built against older library
> linked to versioned symbols. Thus they had to be rebuild.
>
> I'm not very verse in version symboling. If you think the removal
> requires bumping soname (technically probably yes because you simply
> cannot run the old executable against the new library), you can try
> to
> explain it to the upstream. At the and it's only a release candidate.
> But be prepared they are quite obstinate about this packaging stuff.
I do not think it is worth it. Effectively rpm dependencies detect this
breakage anyway so there is no need to change the soname.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
