On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 05:00:04AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 00:15:10 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:09:42AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > For libraries with versioned symbols, just checking for the needed > > > version nodes should be enough, and I'd say that adding symbols to > > > a previously existing version node or breaking their ABI is broken, > > > and something that we should not tolerate.
> > Huh? Adding new symbols without adding new version nodes doesn't break > > anything of substance, so why would you say this is "broken"? > I'd say it's conceptually broken, although it was probably missleading > to present those two cases as if they had the same severity. I disagree that it's conceptually broken either. It happens to not be the use of symbol versioning advocated by certain people, but unless you're maintaining a library (= glibc) that will have multiple versions of a symbol available in the same .so, that method increases the upstream maintenance overhead for symbol versions with no benefit to the user. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]