On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 16:01 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 03:47:24PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> Whatever happened to renumbering all symbol versioned libraries > >> to libfoo.0? Or even libfoo.0.0. The whole point of symbol > >> versioning is that we don't need to bump library versions > >> for ABI breakage. > > > > That's what I'd like to see happen (so.0 => symboled lib). Ken felt it > > was too be late to do for 7.0. > > > > But if we do it for 8.0, we'd have to have a compat7x port which put > > symlinks in place. So the upgrade path is a little rougher than we > > should have for symboled libs. Thus we won't get the symboled libs done > > painlessly right. > > Ugh, that's awful. We should do it now and be done with it if > we are going to do it at all... >
How about instead of migrating to "libc.so.0" we migrate to
"libc.so.symboled"? :-)
/me ducks...
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
