Re: packaging shared libraries without autoconf and automake

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----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


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux