[OpenAFS-devel] open issues for an openafs 1.8 branch

[chas williams - CONTRACTOR]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
> > Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not lazy, but if nothing else is linked against it then it should be
> > > > safe to do whatever you want.  You aren't going to break anyone else's
> > > > binaries.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure that there are external consumers of these things, they're
> > > just site-local tools that are not in Debian.
> >
> > I guess you should ask openafs-users how onerous it would be for them
> > to rebuild their local tools or how many have local tools linked
> > against shared libraries.
> 
> I don't see why.  Incrementing SONAME is not a hardship for us, nor should
> it be a hardship for our consumers, as they can keep the old library
> around until they need to rebuild.
> It is the clearly Correct thing to do, since we have changed our ABI,
> regardless of whether we believe there are any external consumers of the
> changed ABI.
> 
> Am I missing something?

I didn't see that debian apparently is keeping the shared libraries in
their own package.  So no, I don't see a problem with this.