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

Re: Improving dependencies on shared libraries



On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 07:52:40PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 03 juin 2007 à 19:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > Pierre explained that a sane library maintainer could/would use a new
> > version associated to the symbol even the ABI hasn't changed so that any
> > application linked against the newer version get to effectively depend
> > on the new version.
> 
> I'm afraid we could count the number of libraries that use a per-symbol
> versioning scheme with a single hand.

  Of a guy that had many fingers amputated.

> > On the contrary, with my mecanism if a new symbol appear it's
> > automatically associated to the new release. Thus it's no more possible
> > to "miss new symbols and forget to bump the shlibs". I really think that
> > on the whole, it will be way better than the current situation.
>
> It will surely be better for a majority of packages, and it is going to
> completely break a minority. It is not possible to rely on maintainers
> who don't really understand all the ways an ABI can change to tell
> whether this or that symbol has changed. I wouldn't trust myself to do
> that over a long time for all my own packages, at least.

  FWIW I don't really think it'll break a lot of one, and this minority
could be flagged not-for-buxy's-tool. What worries me more is the big
amount of let's say (completely at random) C++ libraries that do not use
symbols visibility, hence exposing myriad of non exported symbols, which
will create new shlib bumps for ... nothing.


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpSfZS2NVOaC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: