On Saturday 02 January 2010 07:31:45 pm Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Roman Jarosz <kedge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:05:28 +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles > > > > <pgqui...@elpauer.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Roman Jarosz <kedge...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Boiko, here is the first pile of libmsn fixes. > >>> > >>> The 4th patch was not included intentionally. > >> > >> Regarding patch > >> 0005-Remove-ifdef-LIBMSN_INBOX_URL_ENABLED-and-make-pure-.patch, I > >> think you do not need to bump soname because the method is virtual. > >> See http://tinyurl.com/ydfphzy > > > > Hm, I don't see anything about pure virtual functions > > From http://tinyurl.com/ydfphzy : > > "You cannot... > [...] > For virtual member functions: > * add a virtual function to a class that doesn't have any virtual > functions or virtual bases. > * add new virtual functions to non-leaf classes as this will break > subclasses. See below for some workarounds or ask on mailing lists. > [...]" > > In this case, that's a leaf class and it already has virtual methods > (i. e. there is a virtual table already), so the change it's > binary-compatible. > > >, but the bump is > > > > also because > > the older version (0.2.0) could have LIBMSN_INBOX_URL_ENABLED on/off so > > this > > will force Kopete recompilation and will fix all the unexpected crashes. > > Soversion was changed from 0.1.0 to 0.2.0 because > LIBMSN_INBOX_URL_ENABLED broke binary compatibility even when > LIBMSN_INBOX_URL_ENABLED was OFF, due to the addition of data members > (search the archives of this mailing list, I explained this in great > detail a few weeks ago). > > Bump soname just to force Kopete to be rebuilt is a very bad practice > and I oppose. > > Bumping soname without a need makes my life as the Debian maintainer > of libmsn more complicated because I need to submit the package and go > through the FTP-masters queue again, which may take several weeks. > Please don't.
Sorry, but we're not responsible for Debian project process issues. We *are* responsible for making sure we don't have stupid bugs and crashes in our code. If it takes a long time to get your stuff uploaded into Debian, that's not our problem. I'm in favor of an soversion bump if it makes our job as library users easier, then I'm all for it. -- Matt _______________________________________________ kopete-devel mailing list kopete-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel
