On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 12:02 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:53:53PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > As upstream didn't seriously consider the API breakage, json
> > 0.11->0.12 brings an issue of one function which is deprecated from
> > now on. This has caused bug 1123785
>
> > so I will bump the soname manually
>
> I'm sorry, wat???
>
> This is not your decision to make as packager. What will you do when upstream
> bump the soname? Do soname +1 again?
>
> If the udpate broke packages:
<snip>
> b) if it was only applied to rawhide (which to my
> understanding it should have), then just inform the maintainers of the
> affected
> packages that they have to rebuild or ask to do so yourself.
No, that would completely defeat the point of the soname. If upstream
won’t use sonames or symbol versioning, it’s better for Fedora to
patch the software to use them properly, even if it means having to
continue to patch it. IIRC we do have various packages that have to
do this.
If upstream is not using soname bumping then it would probably be better
for fedora to use symbol versioning rather than arbitrarely bumping so
names ...
(The tradeoff here is that if we don’t fix the soname/versioning
usage, locally-compiled software of _Fedora’s_ users, and packages in
_Fedora_ that didn’t get updated, are silently broken;
it is a very bad tradeoff, esp given symbol versioning can be used to
avoid that.
if we do fix the soname/versioning usage, other people’s
_non-Fedora_
packages may not be installable on Fedora easily. The best thing of
course is to have upstream use sonames/versioning correctly, and have
nothing broken; but if that’s not possible, a Fedora-specific fix does
seem much more preferable.)
Making upstream aware of the problem and sending patches is always
preferable. Educate them so the problem is solved once and for all.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York