On 03/23/2019 01:28 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 03/23, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 03/23/2019 01:09 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>> On 03/23, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> [...]
+$(OUTPUT)libbpf.so.$(LIBBPF_VERSION): $(BPF_IN)
+ $(QUIET_LINK)$(CC) --shared -Wl,-soname,libbpf.so.$(L
On 03/23, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 03/23/2019 01:09 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 03/23, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> [...]
> >> +$(OUTPUT)libbpf.so.$(LIBBPF_VERSION): $(BPF_IN)
> >> + $(QUIET_LINK)$(CC) --shared -Wl,-soname,libbpf.so.$(LIBBPF_VERSION) \
> > Shouldn't it be -soname,libbpf.so
On 03/23, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Even though libbpf's versioning script for the linker (libbpf.map)
> is pointing to 0.0.2, the BPF_EXTRAVERSION in the Makefile has
> not been updated along with it and is therefore still on 0.0.1.
>
> While fixing up, I also noticed that the generated shared obj
Even though libbpf's versioning script for the linker (libbpf.map)
is pointing to 0.0.2, the BPF_EXTRAVERSION in the Makefile has
not been updated along with it and is therefore still on 0.0.1.
While fixing up, I also noticed that the generated shared object
versioning information is missing, typi
