Bug#639015: libffi soname change upcoming

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 11:39 +0100 schrieb Simon Marlow:
> > I’m not sure if I got your conclusion: Do you expect problems if the RTS
> > and libraries were built against different versions of libffi, or not?

> To answer your question: yes I would expect problems. 

Thanks for your assessment.

Matthias, I hope you understand why I would not drop the libffi
dependencies from the Haskell packages; better safe than sorry. I can
supervise the resulting binNMU-orgy, if you prefer.

>  My question was: 
> how do other (non-Haskell) packages on Debian that contain static 
> libraries deal with this problem?  We should follow whatever approach is 
> used by others.

I’m actually not sure if we have this situation (various interdepending
static libraries dynamically linking libffi).

OCAML might be in a similar situation, but it seems that they don’t use
libffi. Their packages do, however, all seem to have a dependency on
libc6 which corresponds to our situation. Only that a so-name bump of
libc is probably less frequent than one in libffi...

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata at debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20111004/634d60e8/attachment.pgp>