[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Symbols files for C++ libraries for Ubuntu main

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:29:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I completely disagree.  Replacing a somehow suboptimal check with no
> check is not an option.

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> IMHO symbols files should be mandatory for any new libraries
> introduced in the archive.
> And we should assert symbols files for everything in main, and fix all
> the things.
> It's 2018, and we really ought to have sensible and strict symbols
> files.

Both of these statements on their own state that we must do this work
but don't explain why this is of benefit to Ubuntu. I feel that you need
to justify your position rather than just stating it.

Can you provide examples of where maintaining this delta has actually
helped make Ubuntu better, in the specific case that C++ symbols are
being maintained by Ubuntu in a delta that Debian and upstream have
declined to adopt or postponed adopting? Without examples, we're not
really in a position to assess the trade-off of extra work vs. benefit
to Ubuntu. I don't think we should be maintaining delta unless the
benefit can be articulated and justified.

Separately, I question whether it's in the interest of our project to
spend time on maintaining a quality improvement indefinitely if Debian
and/or upstream decline to take it, and if that particular improvement
is not a high level goal of our project.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20180522/a1f19e89/attachment.sig>