On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 13:28 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 8/12/11 12:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > > > >> Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is fine > >> in this situation as it sticks to the published ABI. In-tree code that plays > >> with non-ABI symbols will break and so may need a stricter dep. > > > > It is in this situation, but there are other situations where depending > > on the SONAME will cause breakage. If libfoo 1.1 adds a new symbol, > > anything built against it may fail to run against libfoo 1.0. But how > > will you know that in advance if all you have in your dependencies is > > the SONAME? > > In fairness, this is why rpm elaborates soname dependencies to also > include symbol versions. It's a pity that symbol versions are so > painful to use that really only glibc makes any effort to do it. FWIW: talloc, tdb, tevent, and ldb and all of samba4 also do symbol versioning since recently, thanks to waf build extensions that make it simple to do. > Hilariously gcc _does_ let you specify symbol version in a __attribute__ > tag, but only on HP/UX on ia64. Thanks for that. [fail] Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
