Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:34:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: shared library bump, symbol versioning, libthr change Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705111330070.1459@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <8e5ef5f70705110951p55e4eb6aqe2ef23b3e77d907a@mail.gmail.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705060923030.1180@sea.ntplx.net> <20070511083154.0b72ff46@kan.dnsalias.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705110906320.387@sea.ntplx.net> <8e5ef5f70705110951p55e4eb6aqe2ef23b3e77d907a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On 5/11/07, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: >> >> At a minimum, all libraries that have been symbol-versioned need >> to be bumped, though. How about if I commit everything except for >> the bumping of non-symbol-versioned libraries? After a later >> discussion, re@ can decide whether or not to bump the remaining >> libraries. Is this acceptable? >> > > Not really. You've wrote it several times before and I kept forgetting to ask > you why do you think libraries getting versioned symbols need to be > bumped. There might be a valid reason for this, but it somehow escapes me > and I would greatly appreciate you helping me to get this straight. I do not > think breaking binaries linking to symbols to which they had no business to > link > in the first place is reason good enough. And testing done by Kris did show > us that the percentage of such binaries extremely small, small enough to be > treated as a noise. I think it was because I thought libraries and applications that are linked without symbol dependencies would always get the latest version of the symbol, not the earliest version of the symbol. But if I recall correctly from prior email from you, you should get the earliest version of the symbol in lieu of no recorded symbol dependency? > > I certainly wouldn't mind you committing everything _but_ version bumping. > > Back to libc.so.7 bump mistake. I an this >< close to actually suggest > that we back libc.so.7 bump out and do things RIGHT for a change. No argument here, go for it. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0705111330070.1459>