* Adam Williamson: > See I thought that too at first, and was going to cite it, but then I > thought, wait. The problem isn't that the update *actually broke the > ABI*, right? The problem is that it *unnecessarily bumped the soname*. > I think abidiff's job is to catch the *opposite* problem, isn't it? > Where the ABI changes but the soname isn't bumped.
Eh, the soname is part of the ABI provided by the package. Historically symbol versions were even tied to sonames (but glibc 2.30 did away with that because all it did was preventing valid programs from loading). Maybe the ABI checker employed here doesn't verify it because it assumes that part is checked as part of the RPM dependencies? Thanks, Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
