On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 07:46:51 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > El mar., 24 de abr. de 2018 02:47, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> > > escribió: > > Scott Kitterman: > > > On April 23, 2018 10:03:45 PM UTC, "Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer" > > > > <perezme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> If I understand correctly and, let's suppose, libQtFoo 5.10.2 is built > > >> with a patched compat 12, then all applications rebuilt against 5.10.2 > > >> would require at very least 5.10.2 even if symbols files allowed it to > > >> depend on a minor version. > > > > As far as I understand it, symbols files overrule shlibs. I.e. if your > > symbols files covers all the symbols required by the application, the > > version will be derived from the symbols file. > > > dpkg-shlibdeps(1) seems to agree with this: > [snip] > > Interesting. That sounds pretty good then. I'll check the next time I > rebuild qt. > > > If that's true, I doubt C++ symbols files are worth the trouble. > > > > > Scott K > > > > I think this case would still work as it used too (e.g. ok for .debs and > > ignored for .udebs - but as I recall, qtbase-abi does not have any udebs > > and should not be concerned by that) > > If everything works as we understand it now then yes, it should just simply > work.
Yes, I agree. I appreciate the clarification. Scott K
