On 2023-02-18 @ 03:03 UTC, Gordon Messmer wrote:
use libtool-style versions collected from library filenames to provide
versioned library requirements
How does this affect the output from "readelf --symbols --version-info foo.o"
which displays symbols and symbol versions? How much more space is required
in an ET_REL file? Suppose there is an .rpm package
"hello_world-1.0.f40.x86_64.rpm"
for printf("Hello world!\n") which delivers an ET_DYN main program and an
ET_DYN .so
shared library. Please show explicitly the literal differences in
corresponding files
(.spec, .rpm, .so, a.elf, .o) before and after implementing the proposed
improvement.
Packages built on a system where the _elf_require_fallback_versions macro was
enabled would not be usable on a system that was built without the
_elf_provide_fallback_versions macro enabled.
Packages built on a system without the _elf_provide_fallback_versions could not be used on Fedora as replacements or alternatives to Fedora dependencies, after the _elf_require_fallback_versions macro was enabled in Fedora.
That sounds to me like "not compatible in any way." That is, any attempt at
using
both old packages and new packages together, will fail. I don't like that.
That means that nobody can interact with Fedora packages unless they adopt
the proposed change; and that is very unfriendly.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
