On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 16:31 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 23 August 2006 16:18, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Actually afaik gnome and gtk have the exact same problem (they are fully > > backward compatible but introduce new symbols making apps using these > > new symbols break on older version), but there we've been plastering > > over the problem by manually adding Requires to packages. > > I just talked to some of our Gnome maintainers and they don't think that's the > case at all. > > Isn't that why you have foo-so.1 and foo-so.1.1? Your build that has > foo-so.1.1 could include foo-so.1 for compat no? Am I totally off base here? > Versioned libraries are here for a reason, so that you can know what soname > you're compiling against and need later on down the road. Having random > symbols in random unversioned .so files seems very very wrong to me, as a > shared library. No, they would have to use versioned symbols for this purpose. See http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf section 3. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
