Re: gcl/axiom/acl2/maxima versioned depends on binutils-dev
- To: Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>
- Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcl-devel@gnu.org, binutils-maintainer@packages.debian.org
- Subject: Re: gcl/axiom/acl2/maxima versioned depends on binutils-dev
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:13:43 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040811211343.GA12113@nevyn.them.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcl-devel@gnu.org, binutils-maintainer@packages.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 547js5tnjn.fsf@intech19.enhanced.com>
- References: <[🔎] E1Buic0-0004c1-00@intech19.enhanced.com> <[🔎] 87wu06qs7z.fsf@mrvn.homelinux.org> <[🔎] 547js5tnjn.fsf@intech19.enhanced.com>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:41:48PM -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> OK, given what you state, the 'natural' way to do this of course is to
> have gcl dynamically link against libbfd -- then soname changes
> automatically make the old package uninstallable without a recompile.
Don't do this.
> Part of the issue is the bfd soname numbering system. Minor point
> changes are deemed backward binary incompatible. Were it more like
> libc, for example, the situation would be more tolerable. I'm
> wondering if now that binutils is at 2.15, future development might
> follow a more conventional major/minor numbering scheme maintaining
> backward binary compatibility for a longer period of time.
No.
BFD is not an exported library; its API is subject to continual and
random flux. The only reason Debian installs a shared version is that
it saves a lot of disk space.
I see that binutils-dev includes the libbfd.so and libopcodes.so
symlinks. IMVHO, it shouldn't.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply to: