On 2021-11-24 15:16:12 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2021-11-23 17:55:54 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Nice cleanup with the odbc packaging! Unfortunately the new > > transitional package looks a bit broken. It contains a dangling > > symlink: > > > > $ ls -la /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbccr.so.1 > > ls: cannot access '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbccr.so.1': No such > > file or directory > > > > Which whould point to libodbccr.so.2. But then the package is also > > missing a dependency on libodbccr2. > > I'm wondering. Why was the soname incremented? This should normally > not be done unless the ABI is backward-incompatible. But in such a > case, providing a symlink is wrong and could break applications that > expect the old ABI.
This actually also applies to the stable/testing version 2.3.6-0.1+b1, which provides: lrwxrwxrwx 1 14 2019-07-21 19:09:45 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbccr.so.1 -> libodbccr.so.2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 18 2019-07-21 19:09:45 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbccr.so.2 -> libodbccr.so.2.0.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 47016 2019-07-21 19:09:45 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbccr.so.2.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 12 2019-07-21 19:09:45 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbc.so.1 -> libodbc.so.2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 16 2019-07-21 19:09:45 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbc.so.2 -> libodbc.so.2.0.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 447408 2019-07-21 19:09:45 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbc.so.2.0.0 If the potentially buggy *.so.1 library versions are no longer used, the corresponding symlinks could simply be dropped, and the package split is not needed. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
