[ft-devel] Re: FreeType issues

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Werner,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:12:46AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> I've read your very interesting mail at

>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html

> What's your recommendation in the light of

>   http://freetype.org/freetype2/freetype-2.2.0.html

Thanks for writing!  I applaud the FreeType developers for making this
effort to clean up the exported interface of the library.  I know that
proper handling of library ABIs has been an evolutionary process for most of
us in the Free Software community, and by switching to -export-symbols,
you guys appear to be ahead of the curve.

At the same time, I'm dismayed that this page talks about how badly people's
desktops are going to break, and *not* about a library soname change; and
there's no indication that the -version-info "age" argument has been reset
in freetype2 cvs; even though the -export-symbols change is being made
*explicitly because you know people have been using private interfaces*.
Appropriate or not, there is still software in the wild that's using these
interfaces; intended or not, this software was built against headers that
were installed by default by the *upstream* install target, and linked
against libraries with the exact ABI that you as upstream exported.

And GNU/Linux distributions are caught in the middle.  We certainly didn't
choose for this software to use internal freetype interfaces, but we will
have to deal with the fact that an unspecified number of applications and
libraries -- some that we distribute, perhaps many more installed on users'
systems that we did not -- will break when they upgrade to the new freetype,
simply because you opted not to change a number to acknowledge this reality.
Please don't do this to us!  It is not worth the pain to millions of users
just to continue calling the library "libfreetype.so.6"!

If for whatever reason you decide not to change the SONAME for 2.2, it will
still be my recommendation to the Debian freetype maintainer that he change
the *package* name; this is the only option that stands a chance at
providing a smooth upgrade path for our users with a change in such an
important library.  Even then I'm not sure it's much of a chance.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
address@hidden                                   http://www.debian.org/

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature