After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 619184 - symbol removal without soname bump (e_component_listener_new)
symbol removal without soname bump (e_component_listener_new)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution-data-server
Classification: Platform
Component: general
2.30.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-05-20 10:49 UTC by Yves-Alexis Perez
Modified: 2010-05-22 01:26 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Yves-Alexis Perez 2010-05-20 10:49:51 UTC 
Hey,

I'm not sure the report is valid, but still. A Debian user reported me that he experienced crashes in ekiga in a somewhat mixed environment: libebackend and libedataserver 2.30, while libebook at 2.28 (waiting for an updated evolution-exchange to be built).

The ekiga crash was related to a missing symbol in libedataserver, e_component_listener_new, which indeed is present in 2.28 but missing in 2.30.

Afaiui, removing an exported symbol changes the ABI, and thus should lead to an updated soname? Am I wrong or is there something fishy?

The commit seems to be 63fd672235b34ec98a6f9f8e50b553c0224db4f7.

Cheers,
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2010-05-20 14:51:27 UTC 
Indeed it looks like we missed a soname bump.  Since 2.30 is already out the door though, I'm not sure if it's really worth bumping now.  Perhaps just bump it for the current development branch?
Comment 2 Yves-Alexis Perez 2010-05-20 15:04:08 UTC 
Well, at least it'll prevent other breakages even for the stable branch. We'll do the package renaming in Debian, but it'd be even better to have matching soname.
Comment 3 Matthew Barnes 2010-05-20 15:07:16 UTC 
Okay, so you think it should be bumped for 2.30.2?
Comment 4 Yves-Alexis Perez 2010-05-20 15:12:38 UTC 
Yes, that would help maintainership and prevent crashes.
Comment 5 Matthew Barnes 2010-05-20 16:19:35 UTC 
Hmm, this is complicated by the fact that I already bumped the libedataserver soname for 2.31 after I purged all the deprecated API.  I guess the correct thing to do then is bump the soname for both 2.30 and 2.31, so that 2.31's soname remains different from 2.30?

Just trying to make sure I do this right...
Comment 6 Yves-Alexis Perez 2010-05-20 16:43:05 UTC 
If there's no 2.31 release with the “new” soname, then yes it should be ok to re-bump it for 2.31 and use the previous one for 2.30.
Comment 7 Matthew Barnes 2010-05-20 17:16:29 UTC 
I think it was bumped prior to 2.31.1, so I'll just bump both I guess with sufficient explanation in the commit messages.