On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:35 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Thomas M Steenholdt wrote: > > > Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> Build System wrote: > >> > >>> - Rebuild due to mysql 5.0 update and openssl library update. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> we see rebuilds very often due to library updates. are they strictly > >> necessary (i.e., do the libraries break binary compatbility so often?) > >> > >> much of the advantages of shared libraries are lost this way. we have > >> to update a ton of packages, and those which are forgotten (or > >> locally built) break. > >> > > > > sometimes updating a shared library breaks the interface > > if the interface was broken. surly more than a rebuild would be > required. the application using the library would need to be updated. No, there is difference between breaking source code compatibility and binary compatibility. For example in a new version of a library some #defined macro names can be changed -> source code isn't compilable anymore, but ABI isn't broken. OTOH when some member (which is optional and so behaviour doesn't change if it isn't set) is added to a struct which is allocated by the caller of the library API -> ABI is broken but source code can be recompiled and no problem appears. > > or possibly even adds new features that we want. > > if we use the new feaures we need to update the code in the library's > users. if we don't, why is a rebuild required? > > > In these cases rebuild is required. Most times, it's when updating to > > a new version of a lib, openssl 0.9.7 - 0.9.8 which i believe is what > > has happened here. (haven't checked though) > > > seems a lot of churn for a minor release. library authors should care > more. designing binary compatible capable interfaces is not that hard. Please report that to openssl upstream. -- Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
