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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpq8PavhzxpP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
