On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Note that this is a case where the API is supposed to be stable across > architectures... can you show me what the differences are and why they are > legitimate? > > Please show me the build-failure.
FTR, here's the relevant output for kfreebsd: dh_makeshlibs -V -plibusb-0.1-4 --add-udeb="libusb-0.1-udeb" dpkg-gensymbols: warning: some symbols disappeared in the symbols file. dpkg-gensymbols: warning: debian/libusb-0.1-4/DEBIAN/symbols doesn't match completely debian/libusb-0.1-4/DEBIAN/symbols --- dpkg-gensymbolsCjbx1b 2007-11-20 08:40:47 +0100 +++ dpkg-gensymbolsa5oh1T 2007-11-20 08:40:47 +0100 @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 +#DEPRECATED: 2:0.1.12-7# [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 +#DEPRECATED: 2:0.1.12-7# [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.1.12-7 dh_makeshlibs: command returned error code 256 make: *** [binary-arch] Erreur 1 This proves that with we will have legitimate API difference between architectures who have differing kernels. I don't think it's representative of the majority of packages though. Though it's worth asking ourselves if it would make sense to have an intermediary fallback between debian/*.symbols.<arch> and debian/*.symbols that would be debian/*.symbols.<kernel>. Opinions? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
