Jay Berkenbilt <q...@debian.org> wrote: >>> That might be, but if that's the case, that's of the responsibility of >>> the libqpdf maintainer; if the ABI changed, it's a transition and >>> binNMUs should have been requested. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> OdyX >> >> I'm very alarmed as there were not supposed to be any ABI changes >> between 4.1 and 4.2 and I am generally extremely careful about such >> things. I will look into it as soon as possible and release a new >> version right away if I accidentally introduced an ABI change. > > I have been able to reproduce the problem locally. It doesn't look like > the result of an ABI change. I have yet to determine for sure whether > the problem is in libqpdf or whether it's in pdftopdf, but I'm assuming > libqpdf until I prove otherwise. I will refrain from posting again > until I have something more definitive to say.
Well, it does look like it must be an ABI change, though I can't yet figure out how as I'm looking very carefully at the bad commit and don't see anything that should constitute an ABI change. However, I can reproduce it now using only qpdf by doing a trivial operation, linking with the old library and then running with the new one. If I can't figure it out fast, I'll bump the soname and do a new release. I will also add a stronger check for ABI changes as part of my release checklist since I apparently don't have as complete a picture in my mind as I thought I did about what constitutes an ABI change. -- Jay Berkenbilt <q...@debian.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
