Initially filed by jlaska as https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/190 , effectively incorporates https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/75 also

Remi Collet posted a [[ http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/06/20/ABI-:-stability-check | blog article ]] on how to use the ​[[ http://ispras.linux-foundation.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker | ABI compliance checker ]] to ensure that ABI is maintained during updated releases of a package (this could be used to compare versions changes as well).

Kamil noted in the initial ticket that it "may be related" to https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/75 . In fact they're effectively the same suggestion: ACC and rpmsodiff (which is a part of [[ https://fedorahosted.org/rpmdevtools/ | rpmdevtools ]]) do the same thing, checking for ABI breaks between two library files (usually, different versions of the same library).

It's important to note that this test would be 'checking upstream's work', in most cases. The convention is that the soname of the library must be bumped when a change is introduced that will break backwards ABI/API compatibility. rpmguard already checks for and notes cases where the soname of a library changes between package versions.

So a test that uses a check of this type would principally be useful in identifying upstream errors, or dealing with libraries that do not obey the convention. A (genuine) failure of this test in a library which is known to respect the convention would be a fairly serious error and should raise alarms.