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

Re: Fwd: Re: Why no Opera?

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Zitat von "Roberto C. Sánchez" <roberto@connexer.com>:
> >Dynamic linking is what the security team likes since it means that you
> >only update the code once for the whole system.  However, in the event
> >that there is an update which makes the library non-binary compatible,
> >then there is another problem.  That is, apps linking against it must be
> >recompiled.
> That's what ABIs are for. If a new version of a library breaks an  
> application that uses the not-changed API as intended, it is the  
> library that needs to use a new soname.
> The package dependencies will indicate the needed libraries. Library  
> packages in Debian should reflect the soname, thus the package name  
> changes when the soname changes. No problem, then.
I understand that.  The point I was trying to get at is that in such
cases Debian tries to minimize the proliferation of many versions of
libraries in the archive.



Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: