-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/22/2010 08:37 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > If upstream isn't building a shared library, then you have no good way > to set a version and then maintain an ABI. Not true at all. Why should this be the case? The package maintainer should ideally _always_ be the one deciding the versioning. I actually hope this would be done more frequently. Of course this requires intimate knowledge of the ABI. But if this is available the results can be much better. The reason is that upstream maintainers often don't take advantage of the technologies gcc and the Linux runtime provide. We can, in many cases, prevent an ABI breakage and/or bumping of the DSO version with techniques like symbol redirection, symbol versioning etc. That's often just not available elsewhere. The result would be that DSOs use internal versioning and updates don't break existing code by replacing DSOs with versions with different names. - -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktbIEoACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHQ8XgCgyrFfgYXshxJaQhyCyTRsxkuw bFEAoLliKiQ7UcfKve6mbCQ3vGm6tkDr =mduB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel