On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 14:38, Uwe Hermann wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:11:32AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:24, Uwe Hermann wrote: >> > FYI, I've updated the urjtag package in Debian to r2007, the old 0.10 >> > release was getting, well... old. >> > >> > More info: http://packages.qa.debian.org/u/urjtag.html >> > >> > Builds fine on all architectures, it seems. >> >> the biggest issue preventing a release was the shared library ABI. >> the file list on the debian site doesn't list any libraries. did you >> build it statically and not install/delete any of the library code ? > > Yeah, I'm currently disabling the lib, see > http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/urjtag/0.10+r2007-1/10_disable_lib.patch
thanks > I wasn't sure whether it's to be considered stable or not, and when/how > to increase the version number(s) of ABI/API/libtool stuff. how strict is the SONAME policy of Debian ? i think urjtag is too in flux to commit to a stable ABI at this point. i don't have a problem bumping the ABI # every time, but i don't know if you have to keep around the older SONAME packages. probably not if nothing in Debian is relying on it ? > are no external programs that use the lib, yet? So for now I guess it > can remain disabled. yes & no. the Blackfin gdbproxy uses it to provide a gdb monitor. -mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
