On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:10:26PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Yes, and if a future version of *any* library will change its ABI it
> > will fail as well and we do not force the strict dependency anyway. So
> > my question is rather, in how far such dh_linktree-ed JS libraries
> > deserve that specific care we do not implement otherwise.
>
> The ABI/API might be unchanged, the supplementary file might be an
> internal detail and not something the end-user should care about.
>
> But even in that case, someone using this library through the symlink tree
> might get failures.
Sure, call it ABI/API change whatever - there might be future changes of
some dependency and restricting the version to some specific one is simply
assuming / wild guessing that a break will happen. I do not see this as
a reasonable default just because something is provided as a symlink.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120607133952.gb20...@an3as.eu
