Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-16 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Jeffrey Ratcliffe , 2012-04-15, 11:58: You seem to be distinguishing between functions declared as inline, and those inlined by the compiler. My understanding that the compiler was under no obligation to follow the inline directive, and I don't see an easy way to check when functions have bee

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-15 Thread Jeffrey Ratcliffe
You seem to be distinguishing between functions declared as inline, and those inlined by the compiler. My understanding that the compiler was under no obligation to follow the inline directive, and I don't see an easy way to check when functions have been inlined or not. Taking an example - this s

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-04 Thread Jakub Wilk
AFAICS all the symbols that disappeared correspond to functions declared as inline. According to http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00755.html it's safe to mark such symbols as optional. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-03 Thread Jeffrey Ratcliffe
I've attached the build log. iulib_0.4.4+ds-2_i386.build Description: Binary data

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-02 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Jeffrey Ratcliffe , 2012-04-02, 21:52: --- debian/libiulib0d.symbols (libiulib0d_0.4.4+ds-2_i386) +++ dpkg-gensymbols9n1RFj 2012-03-31 21:36:53.332455360 +0200 @@ -2,53 +2,67 @@ _ZN14SDL_extensions13SDL_draw_lineEP11SDL_Surfacej@Base 0.4.4 (optional)_ZN5colib4copyIN6imgrle6RLERunES

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-02 Thread Jeffrey Ratcliffe
On 1 April 2012 22:34, Jakub Wilk wrote: >> The suggested patch indeed fixes the problem. However, the symbols >> exported are now updated. > > What do you mean? I get a diff that starts like this, and carries on for a couple of hundred lines: dpkg-gensymbols: warning: some new symbols appeared

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-01 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Jeffrey Ratcliffe , 2012-04-01, 14:20: The suggested patch indeed fixes the problem. However, the symbols exported are now updated. What do you mean? I assume this means that the SONAME should be bumped. The patch (or mere recompilation) should not break ABI, unless something is very ver

Bug#651402: Symbols in iulib

2012-04-01 Thread Jeffrey Ratcliffe
The suggested patch indeed fixes the problem. However, the symbols exported are now updated. I assume this means that the SONAME should be bumped. To what? 0e? How was 0d chosen? d for debian? The packaging for ocropus should then be updated to fix the dependency on libiulib0d. -- To UNSUBSCR