> Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > Hi > > > > Is there an statement in Debian Policy that explicitly requires higher > > version of a shared library package to be backwards-binary-compatible > > with previous versions of the same package? > > > > I mean, is a situation when after library package upgrade local > > binaries stops working because of missing symbols, by definition an RC > > bug against library package? Or is depends on particular situation? > > Yes, it's an RC bug. If you break the API and/or ABI, you need to change > the package name and the SONAME. > > See e.g. > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
Is libpkg-guide an official debian document these days? If not, maybe API/ABI-keep requirement should be added to Policy?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
