On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system, > particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some > poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when > individual symbols were added to a package -- apparently, many packages > would actually be happy with glibc 2.1 or so (at least on i386), but we have > no way to track this... > I was just thinking the same with this thread ... The principal problem with the "shlibsyms" stuff was that in order to track when symbols are added to a package, you need the list of the set of symbols that were in the last version -- and as the source packages are put together before the binary, the source package wouldn't contain the updated set of symbols. One "easy" way would be to simply make it an error for there to be any new symbols while building a source package -- so you'd have to update the table before building so it gets put into the source; this is a bit invasive though. (It also could have repercussions for buildds, if there are symbols that only exist on a particular architecture.) I haven't come up with another yet. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part