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

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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.



Invasive, yes, but I think it's time to take our library QA tools to the
next level.

> (It also could have repercussions for buildds, if there are symbols that
> only exist on a particular architecture.)

Yep.  And glibc happens to be the chief candidate for that, unfortunately.
Also an issue are any C++ libs being built using different compilers on
different architectures.

So there does seem to be a need for per-architecture override lists.  I'm
not sure how user-friendly the support for that would need to be initially,

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: