On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:06:45AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > See I thought that too at first, and was going to cite it, but then I > thought, wait. The problem isn't that the update *actually broke the > ABI*, right? The problem is that it *unnecessarily bumped the soname*. > I think abidiff's job is to catch the *opposite* problem, isn't it? > Where the ABI changes but the soname isn't bumped. > > I would need to check, but I suspect possibly in this case abidiff just > wouldn't do anything at all, because what it would seem to make sense > to do is run it only on pairs of shared libraries with identical > sonames from the two package builds. When the soname is bumped, it > wouldn't make sense to run abidiff, because you'd *expect* the ABI to > change in that case. Ah, indeed. That could well be the case. I wonder if we shouldn't setup a 'soname bump test', make it gating for everything and require waiving it. It would be a extra step and more hassle, but it would prevent unintended soname bumps from landing, it would make it a deliberate choice. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
