Re: Improving dependencies on shared libraries
- To: Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Improving dependencies on shared libraries
- From: Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:37:08 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070603103708.GD5222@grep.be>
- In-reply-to: <20070526210237.GF11002@ouaza.com>
- References: <20070526190616.GA11002@ouaza.com> <1180209327.389.24.camel@tomoyo> <20070526203423.GC11002@ouaza.com> <1180212491.389.37.camel@tomoyo> <20070526210237.GF11002@ouaza.com>
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 11:02:37PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Right, I read your message too quickly, sorry. However the maintainer
> can change the symbols file in his package and update the dependency
> associated to this symbol and make sure that a binary using this symbol
> will depend on the version used to build the package.
Miss one and you create a whole ****load of bugs. It also presumes the
library maintainer knows enough about libraries to be able to handle
this type of thing, which I do not think is a safe presumption.
> However it might well be some form of micro-management that you don't want
> to have to deal with. And it can't be handled automatically. How
> frequently do we encounter this kind of extension of the ABI ?
Most libraries have a bunch of them on every ABI update.
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.