transition: proposal libpt2.6.5->libpt2.6.6 & libopal3.6.6->libopal3.6.7
msp at debian.org
Sat Apr 24 04:56:12 UTC 2010
On Saturday 24 April 2010 13:26:20 Craig Southeren wrote:
> As one of the maintainers of the upstream (opal & ptlib), please feel
> free to email me if I can help
Thanks for the offer.
I do have one question/ request of upstream.
Does the soname for ptlib/ opal need to change with every release?
Generally this isn't considered best practise:
Are subsequent minor versions of the libs really not binary (ABI) compatible?
The problem for distributions is that every time the soname changes all depends of
that library then need to be rebuilt and everyone needs to download all of the
rebuilt binary packages.
In contrast if the soname is only bumped when binary compatibility is broken then
we only need to rebuild as necessary.
In this particular case I wouldn't need to coordinate the transition from ptlib
2.6.5 -> 2.6.6 as I suspect they are binary compatible.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Pkg-voip-maintainers