[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:08:59 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Preparing to release 0.9.12
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 05:38:51PM -0700, Isaac wrote:
> > The so versioning will not help for C++ related things. The most
> > important use case I had in mind is that, package managers that use
> > soversions for automatic dependencies, can insert proper "require
> > version XXX or later of this .so". That is, if we built with musl X, we
> > can detect that from .so, and record it. And later ensure that musl X-1
> > will not satisfy the newly built package's dependencies. Especially
> > important when we are introducing new symbols.
>
> On Debian, there's the "symbols" system; this lists all symbols with the
> version they appeared in, and the tools look through the symbols and
> find the lowest version providing all the symbols.
>
> But as a standard rule, _added_ symbols _do_ _not_ call for a new SONAME,
> since they do not break the ABI.
Good point. In that case, it sounds like it would be wrong to have the
SONAME of musl reflect the version, no?
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
