|
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:11:49 +0100:
I wonder if it should be taken care of by packages, rather than libraries themselves. I'm not sure, but probably most of the libraries doesn't have such symbol versioning in place.On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 15:21 +0330, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:Dear all, I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any. Summary: I have a proposal to make it easier for maintainers to have multiple versions of the same library in distro (by making it *naturally* possible) (and with minimal maintenance overhead), and for users/developers to get their desired version(s) installed. Proposal in brief: instead of packaging libfoo as libfoo, the maintainer *can* package it as libfooVER (e.g. libfoo2) and create libfoo/libfoo-devel package which depends on libfoo2/libfoo2-devel. Now, libfoo-3 package can be packaged as libfoo3, and both can be installed simultaneously (assuming that they provide different .so versions, otherwise it could be provided as an update to libfoo2). Notice that once libfoo2 is in the repos, newer versions (libfoo3/libfoo4) should not require a package review.I'm not against it, for the libraries which provide proper symbol versioning. Otherwise, if you only rely on the soname, you may end up in a situation where a program crashes because of inter-dependencies which make it link with both libfoo1 and libfoo2 which provide the same (but most likely incompatible) symbols. Also, note that all packages must be linked to the 'default' version, unless strictly needed. And probably linking to libfoo1 and libfoo2 simultaneously should be checked automatically (e.g. AutoQA) and forbidden completely. Thanks, Hedayat |
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
