To Require or not to Require?

[Doug Ledford]

On 8/12/2011 1:28 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On 8/12/11 12:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>> Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is fine
>>> in this situation as it sticks to the published ABI. In-tree code that plays
>>> with non-ABI symbols will break and so may need a stricter dep.
>>
>> It is in this situation, but there are other situations where depending
>> on the SONAME will cause breakage. If libfoo 1.1 adds a new symbol,
>> anything built against it may fail to run against libfoo 1.0. But how
>> will you know that in advance if all you have in your dependencies is
>> the SONAME?
> 
> In fairness, this is why rpm elaborates soname dependencies to also 
> include symbol versions.  It's a pity that symbol versions are so 
> painful to use that really only glibc makes any effort to do it.

libibverbs uses symbol versions quite nicely.

> Hilariously gcc _does_ let you specify symbol version in a __attribute__ 
> tag, but only on HP/UX on ia64.  Thanks for that.
> 
> - ajax


-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford at redhat.com>
              GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110812/f4b43f11/attachment.bin