[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Versioned Symbols

* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote:
> > > Consider libpng2/3 problem, and see if it possible to 
> > > still possible to cause problem while following libpkg-guide.
> > 
> > Yes, and I think it's frightening that you advocate staticly linking
> > things in your libpkg-guide and the fact that you even wrote one while
> > apparently not entirely understanding the issues involved...
> I don't advocate it.

You offer it as a 'solution' when it shouldn't be considered one.

> Did you *really* read the libpkg-guide ?

Have you *really* read the thread?  Are you planning on replying to the
other part of the prior email from me asking you that?  Do you still
think changing the Build-Deps or -dev deps a little is going to solve 
the problem I brought up at the beginning of this thread?

> It's been edited over the last year, and I consider it to be 
> pretty good documentation, that if some parts of it entered policy
> we could avoid situations like libssl0.9.6

What about it would avoid libssl0.9.6 problems?  Nothing I saw would
solve the problems of multiple versions of a library ending up linked
into the same process except the symbol versioning portion, which is
what I'm advocating here but you seem to be against while offering
'solutions' that either don't deal with the problem at all or only solve
a portion of it.

If you're talking about it fixing other libssl problems then take it
elsewhere.  We need to discuss the problem I brought up at the beginning
of this thread; that's enough of a headache for now.


Attachment: pgpqdLtAzH_h8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: