Martin Stransky wrote:
Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 09:22 +0100, Martin Stransky wrote:
[snip]
If you're a package maintainer and your package already uses xulrunner,
please rebuild it against the new rawhide version. Xulrunner directory
has been changed and many gecko packages (if not all) are linked with
--rpath linker directive. As long as rpath is used you have to rebuild
gecko-libs based packages after each xulrunner change so please consider
to remove it. Gecko libraries are registered system wide by
/etc/ld.so.conf.d and rpath should not be necessary in rawhide.
But isn't it the case that the libraries in question do not have
soversions?
If the rpath is eliminated, how do we know when things really *do* need
to break?
gecko-libs 1.9 exports only frozen interfaces so ideally we don't need
to rebuild any package unless we move to a completely new gecko (firefox
4 ;-))
I don't find that rationale particularly confidence-inspiring. (Since
when did software development proceed "ideally"? ;-)
Are we sure there are no external symbols accessible from public headers
that aren't considered "frozen"? Or are we just sure that blessed
interfaces are frozen?
I don't like the idea of playing without a net here. soversions are how
we track backward compatibility; software that doesn't follow
conventions *should* be handled with the kind of caution that is
reflected in (for example) an rpath. It's a pain in the ass because it
breaks a lot. But it breaks *predictably*. I'm sure I'm as unhappy with
the rebuilds as anyone; but I *like* determinism *a lot*.
Do we have any statements of intent from upstream regarding these
issues? A commitment to change library names when frozen interfaces
change, perhaps?
--
Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
