Add note about silent ABI break to relese notes for 2.0

[dwbuiten]

You did not mention this at all in the release notes. You have broken the ABI without bumping the SONAME, and it is incredibly irresponsible to not mention this upfront and center in the release notes.

[bdaehlie]

Issue 21 covers our discussion about ABI compatibility. We should make a decision about what we want to do soon. We should do a better job noting our ABI break in the mean time, I agree.

[dwbuiten]

@bdaehlie This is specific to 2.0 though, it's not just "ABI".

[dwbuiten]

FYI, v2.0.1 does nothing to address the SOname issue. You are still naming yourself libjpeg.so, and presenting yourself as the jpeg6 ABI by your SOname. The jpeg6 ABI has more than a decade of history, and the ABI itself is a requirement for e.g. the Linux Standards Base. It is incredibly dangerous IMO to do this.

Also still no mention of this break in the release notes or blog post.

[bdaehlie]

Agreed it's a problem, we'll try to do something about it in the next release. Thanks for raising the issue.

[dwbuiten]

If it is targetted for the next release, I suposed this can be closed and folded into #21, as a blocker for the next version.

[dwbuiten]

Closing this bug, as it has been decided that it will be addressed in 3.0. Note should probably still exist, perhaps.