Ok for reuploading 3.11 to sid, but question: How do we move forward? Ok also to create a nlohmann-json3-3.12-dev or whatever, but I guess this one (3.11) should also go away as soon as possible, and let people migrate to the new one. Will having a new package, new binary -dev solve the issue for each upstream release? I still don't see how forcing people to update the dependency of nlohmann-json3-dev dependency will fix the ABI...
In the meanwhile I created an upstream ticket https://github.com/nlohmann/json/issues/4926 Il mercoledì 17 settembre 2025 alle ore 22:59:09 CEST, Bill Allombert <[email protected]> ha scritto: On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 09:43:01PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:01:28PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 08:33:50AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > > export CFLAGS=-DNLOHMANN_JSON_NAMESPACE_NO_VERSION=1Hello, new idea, what > > > if > > > I upload 3.12 with abi stick to 3.11, such as not changing the namespace > > > anymore? > > > #define NLOHMANN_JSON_ABI_TAGS_CONCAT_EX(a, b, c) json_abi ## a ## b ## c > > > > It is unreasonnable to change the ABI without upstream backing. We should > > not > > create Debian-specific ABI. > > > > I encourage you to discuss the ABI issue with nlohmann-json3 upstream to > > find > > an agreement for future version of nlohmann-json3-dev, but now the urgency > > is > > to restore nlohmann-json3-dev to 3.11.3 to fix all the RC bugs that this > > cause, > > and check every libraries for the wrong ABI and ask for a binNMU. > > So I used codesearch.debian.net and I found that quite a few packages embed > their own copy of nlohmann/json.hpp instead of build-depending on this > package: I have also found a number of libraries with 3.12.0 ABI where 3.11.3 is expected: libsimgrid4.0, libtorch2.6, libmiopen1, libjsonnet0, libvisp-core3.6t64, libvisp-mbt3.6t64 and there are surely others. Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
