package maintainer. Symbols files for C++ is the implementation which is not
ideal, but currently in use. The right thing to do is to replace these with
state of the art technology, like abi-check from Google, or libabigail. There
are tickets in Debian, Ubuntu, and also internally with Canonical, but up to now
nobody has been interested in tackling that. Just dropping the symbols files is
worse.
Matthias
On 18.05.18 01:49, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has recently been a question [1] about whether symbols files
> should be mandatory for C++ libraries in Ubuntu 'main'. I'm curious to
> hear what other Ubuntu developers think about this topic.
>
> Symbols files aren't mentioned in the official MIR criteria at all. [2]
>
> I think there's general agreement that Ubuntu should use symbols files
> for C libraries. And although it's not "required" in Debian as I
> understand it, I think there is widespread support for it as "best
> practice" there too.
>
> C++ libraries can be much more difficult to maintain symbols files
> for. I frequently see uploads for a new upstream release of a C++
> library, quickly followed by another upload to fix the symbols files
> so that the package builds on all supported architectures.
>
> In my opinion, symbols files for a C++ library is a decision best made
> by the package maintainer. [3] Therefore, if the Debian maintainer
> chooses to not maintain symbols files, the Ubuntu team handling the
> package can follow the Debian lead or optionally maintain symbols
> files as an Ubuntu diff.
>
> [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1770748
> [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuMainInclusionRequirements
> [3] See Debian Policy § 8.6
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#dependencies-between-the-library-and-other-packages
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Bicha
>
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
