Hi Mattia, On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 03:48:54PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > I think we both agree that the discussion of upstream is technically not > > the best. > > Feels to me they just don't perceive the need for proper symbol > management, which is not particularly surprising.
Yes, unfortunately not surprising. > > Do you think it is OK to stick to the current soversion anyway? > > If what they say is true, yes. > Please mention that reason in the commit you'll do to drop the line from > the .symbols file. What do you think about my alternative suggestion to reintroduce the function (which is empty anyway)? > Also, I see you added " cram_drain_rqueue@Base 1.8-1": you should simply > use the upstream version, without the debian revision there. Sure. I think this ends up in a build-error / lintian-error (??) anyway. I was just blindly applying the patch that was issued by the last attempt to build and discuss next steps first. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de