On 06/18/2012 07:16 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action
of how to never change the soname again, at least on targets where that is
reasonably possible with symversions?
I'd like to echo this. In my discussions shops doing large C++ development,
they've made it clear that the disruption caused by a soname bump would be
immense and should be avoided at all costs.
Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said ealier
(in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the conclusion
of "enthusiasm for soname bump" is still a mystery.
You'll note that I didn't include that portion of Michael's message.
My comments were meant to echo just the parts of Michael's message that
I included inline. Namely that a soname bump is a huge problem and
great lengths should be taken to avoid it.
jeff
