Binary compatibility broken? between 3.3.1 and 3.3.2

[Stephan Kulow]

Am Thursday 02 December 2004 12:34 schrieb Leo Savernik:
> Am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2004 10:02 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
> > > Yet we can argue whether it is allowed to introduce new public symbols in
> > > patchlevel releases.
> >
> > We could, yes. But it would end up with: packages are supposed to require
> > the patchlevel version they built against as minimum.
> 
> Isn't it already this way?
Obviously not for the akregator RPM

Greetings, Stephan