Jerry James wrote:
Here's something I didn't expect from the new ABI gate.
Why did you not expect it? I pointed out this exact issue on January 13,
right after this change was announced, and ~5 days before it was implemented
without anybody responding to my objection:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1810#comment-488673
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
I wrote there:
Uh, `dist.abicheck` produces a lot of false positives on:
* libraries that are internal and that nothing should depend on (e.g., in
QupZilla, package `qupzilla`),
^ That's exactly the case we are in here. ^
* APIs explicitly documented as "private, can change at any
version", as
common in all Qt modules (e.g., in QtWebEngine, package
`qt5-qtwebengine`).
My packages often fail `dist.abicheck`. It is absolutely not realistic to
expect it to pass for all updates.
Where do I need to send such information next time for people to actually
READ it? I sent it both to the FESCo ticket and to the mailing list!
Kevin Kofler