Comment 23 for bug 12170

> It is no viable strategy to release with a libglade2 that has
> incompatible behaviour to upstream. Just think of a user compiling
> software locally that relies on the changes made in libglade
> 2.4.1.

Then you will need to change the name of the libglade binary package
instead. It is not acceptable to make changes in a library package that
will silently break partial upgrades from woody in this fashion. Either the
ABI must be reverted to provide backwards compatibility, or the package name
must be changed and all packages currently depending on libglade2-0 will
have to be rebuilt.

In the meantime, the changes to libglade2-0 should be reverted *anyway*, so
that we have something that's releasable without having to wait for as many
as 174 binary packages to be rebuilt against the new interface.

Being incompatible with upstream should always be a secondary concern next
to being incompatible with our own previous releases.

> Also, it seems synaptic, which also had this issue (see
> #288642) has already been fixed, as has the Linux kernel's gconfig
> system.

The version of synaptic that fixed this bug is not a candidate for sarge,
per the maintainer.

--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer