On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:01:01PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > I'm planning on uploading a version based on 1.0.0 to Debian > soon. And I would like to keep the current soname for the > rest of the release cycle. The transition from 0.9.7 to 0.9.8 > took over 2 years. I also had to support both the 0.9.7 and > 0.9.8 version at the same time, because some applications were > still linked to the old version. I would like to avoid having > to maintain multiple versions.
I assume you know that 0.9.7 and 0.9.8 were not binary compatible and thus *REQUIRED* different sonames? I have not heard that the situation changed in any way with newer releases. It would take a lot of work to make it so, and I don't see that work going on (nor do I think it should be a high priority for OpenSSL, frankly). If it has the same soname, it *has to* be 100% backwards compatible for a binary application linked to the oldest version with that soname. Both the 0.9.7 and 0.9.8 release streams managed to break that at one point or another though at least for 0.9.8 it was not as serious and most applications would continue to work. It would not be good to make the situation even worse. ELF sonames are not vanity license plates to be used to tell everyone what textual version number you picked for your shiny new library. They tell the system which libraries are guaranteed to be binary compatible with which applications. Failing to change them when changing any exposed interface is a serious bug. Thor ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
