On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 02:42:05PM +0200, Drew Parsons wrote: > On 2025-09-20 13:18, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 07:52:16AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Call it nlohmann-json3.12.0-dev, no need to duplicate the '3'. > > Unfortunately it will need to Conflicts/Replaces (but not Provides) > > nlohmann-json3-dev. > > How unstable is this ABI issue? Is the minor version really needed in the > package name? > Would nlohmann-json3.12-dev not be sufficient?
[[If you are interested, please read the discussion from the start, no need to restart from scratch]] The issue is precisely that upstream hardcode the full version string in the ABI (in typename). Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
