On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote: >>> >>> >> A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be >> avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action >> of how to never change the soname again, at least on targets where that is >> reasonably possible with symversions? > > I'd like to echo this. In my discussions shops doing large C++ development, > they've made it clear that the disruption caused by a soname bump would be > immense and should be avoided at all costs.
Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said ealier (in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the conclusion of "enthusiasm for soname bump" is still a mystery. -- Gaby
