Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 ------- Additional Comments From drzeus-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxx 2006-07-24 21:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #30) > It could be that neither matters but the reasoning is flawed. The reasoning is sound, you just expect the versioning to do more magic than it does. > > I think the real question is whether the calls that libpulsedsp is overriding > (AFAICT: _ioctl, _close, _open, _fopen, _open64, _fopen64, _fclose, _access ) > will ever change their ABI. And if they do, will we need to provide for > concurrent old and new versions or will the change be such that everything will > have to upgrade with no backwards compat-possible. Versioning does not work on this level. If we assume that _open changed it's ABI, then libc.so.6 would become libc.so.7. Still, this would mean nothing to libpulsedsp.so as the only one who knows about it is padsp (or some other script setting the LD_PRELOAD variable). If we have a mix of applications needing libc.so.6 and libc.so.7 then versioning libpulse.so wouldn't solve our problem. We, as users, would need to provide info on which ABI is in place. There wouldn't be any need for two libpulse.so though, as it could be designed to handle both ABI:s, provided it gets information about which it should use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review