On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:28:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > > > Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is fine > > in this situation as it sticks to the published ABI. In-tree code that plays > > with non-ABI symbols will break and so may need a stricter dep. > > It is in this situation, but there are other situations where depending > on the SONAME will cause breakage. If libfoo 1.1 adds a new symbol, > anything built against it may fail to run against libfoo 1.0. But how > will you know that in advance if all you have in your dependencies is > the SONAME? > Yeah, this is what mschwendt was talking about with the potential of yum install <package> leading to brokenness unless yum update is also performed. My reply was really to refute Andreas's assertion that a subpackage doesn't have any further concerns than an external package wrt version dependencies which is wrong for both code-related reasons like this and for other factors (like the relicensing example). This thread has shown that we should probably update the guidelines to not appear so draconian about explicit library dependencies (and highlight the ABI/API implications and possibly get changes to rpmbuild), though. Working on an FPC ticket now. Simo or mjg, one of you want to file a bug against rpmbuild since you guys seem to know how Debian has already implemented this? -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp6xRlN41Mq7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
