* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 07:38:26AM CET: > Quoting Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@xxxxxx>: > > > >So add a symbol to your modified libexpat. Link against that symbol in > >your source code. Use -no-undefined. Then programs will fail to link > >(and on some systems, those where -no-undefined works well, also > >libraries will fail to link). Of course you've broken the API now. > > Why would it break the API if he simply adds a dummy symbol to make the > difference between stock libexpat and his modified version? Oops. Sloppy me, sorry about that. Bob's libexpat would be a compatible, extended interface of the previous stock libexpat. Only moving from Bob's libexpat back to a (possibly newer) stock libexpat would be breaking the interface. But anyway since Bob won't be able to force (at least I guess so) upstream libexpat to skip a version number just for his fun), he won't be able to reflect the incompatibility in the version numbering alone. Either the modified library should remain private, or be renamed; or at least the dependence on the dummy symbol be declared forbidden for public users. If this is a private-only change, then just do it, don't worry. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
