Re: Debian glibc symbol version stuff
Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 25 Oct 2011 00:56:24 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:37:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 25 Oct 2011 00:31:43 +0200, a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:44:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 21 Oct 2011 10:27:03 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > > > __dir_unlink@Base 2.11
> > > > > > __exec_exec@Base 2.11
> > > > > > + __exec_exec_file_name@Base 2.13-21+ts.0
> > > >
> > > > Ah, do your changes add some RPCs? Then that part is expected. The
> > > > symbols stuff is precisely meant to catch such changes.
> > >
> > > (Does dh_makeshlibs run dpkg-gensymbols with -c2? Otherwise it wouldn't
> > > stop due to this, as I understand its documentation?)
> > I don't think it does.
> Hmm, should it do so? Or are you manually watching the glibc build
> process for such changes, or how does this work? (Or how should it
IIRC the idea is that new symbols are not a problem. Adding them can be
overlooked, that'll just produce dependencies which could be less tight
(by expressing when exactly the symbols were introduced)
> > > I don't really like
> > > libmachuser and libhurduser. All code using these should instead
> > > explicitly create these as needed and link against its own copies.
> > Well, that'd be a tedious thing to integrate in all applications which
> > we port to native interfaces of the Hurd.
> Well, I don't think so. As you're saying, it only concerns packages
> using native interface (which are few), and integrating MIG into their
> build process should be (made) easy.
Integrating anything in a build process is quite often a pain.
> > > > > Now, the question is whether the RPC user stubs should get Debian symbol
> > > > > versioning at all, or if they're simply a best-effort thing?
> > > >
> > > > Making them a best-effort would mean that some programs using them would
> > > > get broken when they are removed. We don't really want that :)
> > >
> > > Then we really have to revert dd48e23f43730038df4bb191e7acc47a4ab73c69?
> > Why?
> (To restore the symbols.)
Again, why? :)
> > > But I really hope (and expect) that nobody has been using these functions
> > > anymore (with their bogus names), for years already.
> > Then that's fine.
> ... but only guessing. (Even if I strongly do believe so.)
Then let's just check and be done with guesswork.
> > Debian is a binary distribution. We can check, but I doubt any Debian
> > binary package uses these symbols, so we can simply drop them entirely.
> ... but only guessing. (Even if I strongly do believe so.) But good
> enough for my taste. But what to do with the problem that on some hosts
> (with older gnumach-dev package, as yours), the xxx_cpu_something RPCs
> will re-appear? Should we explicitly set versioned build-depends (lower
> and upper bound) for gnumach-dev and hurd-dev when such changes have been
> done, to force the specific versions?
For instance, yes.