* Howard Chu: > Michael Ströder wrote: >> On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote: >>> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on >>> Pthreads. Which means that now >>> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must >>> actually be linked with the >>> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really >>> important to have a single-threaded >>> LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the >>> standard library? >> >> Mainstream Linux distributions started to remove libldap anyway. >> So +1 to abandon it. > > I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name. We can > completely drop the "libldap_r" name or just keep it as a symlink > for a while, removing it after a year or so.
Hasn't everyone who ships a single library standardized on libldap_r? Fedora wants to unify libldap and libdap_r as well, and my guidance was to use a soname with libldap_r, too. When was the last soname bump for libldap_r? Around 2008? Dropping the symbolic link would result in an unncessary (at this point) soname bump. (Note that the symbolic links are important for glibc at least: the dynamic loader will only load one copy of the library and treat the other names as aliases.)
