Re: Improving dependencies on shared libraries
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:51:24PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, the bump would only occur if the symbol get used... which
wouldn't be a problem.