On 03/05/2013 07:59 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 14:07 -0800, Josh Stone wrote: > >> So given that this library's use is pretty well contained, might it be >> OK to go ahead and update in F18? > > Yeah, that's fine. > > In the future, consider following the glibc pattern of fixing the soname > for all but truly-world-breaking changes, and using symbol versions to > annotate API additions. That way a package that uses an API introduced > in dyninst 8.2 will get an rpm Requires for foo.so(dyninst-8.2)(64bit), > which will make yum automatically search for a sufficiently new dyninst > package without breaking the soname.
Is that feasible for C++ APIs? I mean, it might be possible if you're *really* careful about hiding class changes, but this project is not structured that way. > Minor numbers really do not belong in sonames, for this exact reason. > Every soname string is essentially a unique major version number. Well, "minor" is relative, and upstream is consciously choosing not to preserve ABI in this release, so the soname change is appropriate. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
