Re: Dependencies on shared libs, news and difference between archs
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 05:00:04AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 00:15:10 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:09:42AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > For libraries with versioned symbols, just checking for the needed
> > > version nodes should be enough, and I'd say that adding symbols to
> > > a previously existing version node or breaking their ABI is broken,
> > > and something that we should not tolerate.
> > Huh? Adding new symbols without adding new version nodes doesn't break
> > anything of substance, so why would you say this is "broken"?
> I'd say it's conceptually broken, although it was probably missleading
> to present those two cases as if they had the same severity.
I disagree that it's conceptually broken either. It happens to not be the
use of symbol versioning advocated by certain people, but unless you're
maintaining a library (= glibc) that will have multiple versions of a symbol
available in the same .so, that method increases the upstream maintenance
overhead for symbol versions with no benefit to the user.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.