On Thu, 07 Jun 2012, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:24:35PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > It the next upstream version of your javascript library provides new > > files, they will not be in the symlink tree that you built in your > > package. So at runtime, it will fail because of the missing file. > > Yes, and if a future version of *any* library will change its ABI it > will fail as well and we do not force the strict dependency anyway. So > my question is rather, in how far such dh_linktree-ed JS libraries > deserve that specific care we do not implement otherwise.
The ABI/API might be unchanged, the supplementary file might be an internal detail and not something the end-user should care about. But even in that case, someone using this library through the symlink tree might get failures. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org