* Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> [120317 19:17]:
> These two mechanisms differ in the degree of detail that they
> provide. A <file>symbols</file> file documents every symbol
> that is part of the library ABI and, for each, the version of
> the package in which it was introduced. [...]
This is misleading. It's about when the symbol with its current meaning
was introduced but could be easily misunderstood to mean the first
introduction (and some people might not read the later explanations).
How about something like
| [...] A <file>symbols</file> file documents for each symbol
| exported by a library the minimal version of the package any
| binary using this symbol will need. [...]
> <file>shlibs<file> files also have a flawed representation of
> library SONAMEs, making it difficult to use <file>shlibs</file>
> files in some unusual corner cases.
Only stylistics: How about not using "flawed"? Something like
"Also the way library SONAMEs are represented in <file>shlibs<file>
files makes it difficult to use them in some unusual corner cases."?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324152733.ga20...@client.brlink.eu
