On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 18:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:37:02PM -0400, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > [PATCH 07/08] Generalize Makefile .so Version > > > > Against: numactl-2.0.3-rc2 > > > > When building "upstream" libnuma on a system with, e.g., a distro-supplied > > numactl package installed, I find it useful to build a different version of > > libnuma.so, so that both versions of the library can co-exist. > > Sorry I don't think that's a good idea. If that ever escapes from > your system we have a binary incompatibility mess, which was > always one of the goals of libnuma to avoid. > > I just use LD_LIBRARY_PATH for testing newer libnumas. It's not too > bad. Yeah, I use LD_LIBRARY_PATH when testing in the numactl build directory, [make test], but I also install the tools on the test servers and like to be able to use both version. But, that's just for my convenience, so I'm fine with not including this patch. It's easy enough to rebase for my own use. I do wonder, tho', why we don't/didn't bump the library version when we added the v2 API. One can't tell from looking at the libnuma.so.1 whether it supports the new APIs or not. [I know. objdump will tell me.] Given that the v2 lib still supports the v1 APIs and we install the libnuma.so sym link, seems it would be nice to have the library version match the API version. Later, Lee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
