Hi, all.
2017-10-23 10:04 GMT+09:00 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwama...@debian.org>:
> Hi, all.
>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> 2017-10-22 1:37 GMT+09:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@debian.org>:
>> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>>
>> On 20/10/17 11:13, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:32:06PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>>>> I'd like to push lz4 1.8.0 into unstable.
>>>> The library packge name has not changed since the previous version.
>>>> However,
>>>> some API have been removed . Therefore, lz4 1.8.0 requires transition
>>>> processing,
>>>
>>> Since, as the symbols diff you attached, this version removes symbols,
>>> therefore breaking the ABI, shouldn't the SONAME be changed as well,
>>> together with the package name (i.e. liblz4-1 → liblz4-2).
>>
>> Yes, if symbols are removed, then the ABI is broken and the library needs to
>> bump the SONAME. Worst case, if upstream doesn't want to bump it, you can
>> rename
>> the package to e.g. liblz4-1a, with Conflicts/Breaks/Replaces against
>> liblz4-1.
>> The SONAME bump is preferred though so that liblz4-1 and liblz4-2 are
>> co-installable, which eases both the transition and upgrades.
>
> I see. I undetstood.
>
>>
>> We could ignore the fact that symbols were removed IF those symbols weren't
>> part
>> of the public ABI (e.g. they weren't exported in the public headers). Which
>> seems to be the case here from a quick grep, but I don't know this library
>> well
>> enough to affirm that...
>
> OK, I will check the dependencies of the library and the software that uses
> it.
>
I checked the binary and source code of packages that depend on lz4 and
I confirmed that they do not affect the ABI changed this time.
Therefore, we do not need to do transition.
And Julian's comment, we can see that we do not need to do this.
Thanks, Julian.
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
GPG ID: 40AD1FA6
