Re: disruptive libffi upgrade

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

 



On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 10:09 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 20:58 -0400, Anthony Green wrote:
> > Sorry folks -- thanks for untagging.  I'll ping the list again after May 9, as was suggested earlier in this thread.
> 
> Here's a lightly tested patch which implements my suggestion of keeping
> the symbols as empty stubs.

Ok, so the current state of things now is that the libffi build has been
"untagged", which basically means that while the build is now unused,
but the Fedora package git is a time bomb for whoever goes to work on it
next unless we also revert the changes there.  And the longer we let
the upstream release stand, it's more likely various distributions and
operating systems consume it and we end up with different ABIs in the
wild.

Anthony, any opinions on this patch?  I really think the cost to libffi
for keeping the debug-only symbols as stubs is tiny relative to the cost
of bumping the ABI.


-- 
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