On 18/05/10 17:33, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
The ultimate goal is being able to automatically detect at link time
that program A requires library B implementing at least version X of
the interface and embedding such information in packages
automatically. Just like we do for glibc with its
Le mardi 18 mai 2010 à 12:32 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
As for not wanting to use versioned symbols, could you provide more
information why such a decision was made?
I can't speak for Matthias, but I guess it's because no one pointed out what
currently-existing problem exactly it's
On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 01:11 +0900, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 18 mai 2010 à 12:32 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
As for not wanting to use versioned symbols, could you provide
more
information why such a decision was made?
I can't speak for Matthias, but I guess it's because
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 18 mai 2010 à 12:32 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
As for not wanting to use versioned symbols, could you provide more
information why such a decision was made?
I can't speak for Matthias, but I guess it's
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 17:24 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
Today Elan Ruusamäe and me spent some time making glibc compile with
versioned interfaces for exported symbols.
The ultimate goal is being able to automatically detect at link time
that program A requires library B implementing at
On 05/18/2010 01:43 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
If we autogenerate the version script, I think Matthias can be bribed into
accepting it
Well, the arguments against symbol versioning have not really changed
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 20:30 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
- It can only version functions, we still have have unversioned types,
properties, signals, etc, etc.
It's only able to version exported symbols and I wouldn't ask for
anything more than that. I didn't mean to propose dropping the
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 20:30 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
- It can only version functions, we still have have unversioned types,
properties, signals, etc, etc.
It's only able to version exported symbols and I
Today Elan Ruusamäe and me spent some time making glibc compile with
versioned interfaces for exported symbols.
The ultimate goal is being able to automatically detect at link time
that program A requires library B implementing at least version X of
the interface and embedding such information in
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
I'd like to propose adapting versioned symbols across the stack as
soon as possible. Keep in mind it'll probably break the existing ABI -
didn't test that yet - so as soon as possible might mean during the
nearest
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org
wrote:
I'd like to propose adapting versioned symbols across the stack as
soon as possible. Keep in mind it'll probably break the existing ABI -
Hi!
The ultimate goal is being able to automatically detect at link time
that program A requires library B implementing at least version X of
the interface and embedding such information in packages
automatically. Just like we do for glibc with its GLIBC_x_y
interfaces.
The changes
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
The ultimate goal is being able to automatically detect at link time
that program A requires library B implementing at least version X of
the interface and embedding such information in packages
automatically. Just
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Clasen
matthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org
wrote:
I'd like to propose adapting versioned symbols across the
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/18/2010 12:12 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
And neither are there plans to start using versioned symbols.
Good news then.
Did you misread what Matthias said maybe?
I assumed it was because of the possible ABI
On 05/18/2010 12:12 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
And neither are there plans to start using versioned symbols.
Good news then.
Did you misread what Matthias said maybe?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On 05/18/2010 12:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/18/2010 12:12 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
And neither are there plans to start using versioned symbols.
Good news then.
Did you misread what Matthias said
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/18/2010 12:12 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
And neither are there plans to start using versioned symbols.
Good news then.
Did you
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/18/2010 12:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
As for not wanting to use versioned symbols, could you provide more
information why such a decision was made?
I can't speak for Matthias, but I guess it's because no
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Tristan Van Berkom t...@gnome.org wrote:
It looks to me like your script is going to need somebody
to maintain it in the long term (like one of those annoying
extra files you want to shoot the GTK+ build system for, i.e.
gtk.symbols or such).
Do you have a
On 05/18/2010 12:50 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/18/2010 12:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
As for not wanting to use versioned symbols, could you provide more
information why such a decision was made?
I
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
If we autogenerate the version script, I think Matthias can be bribed into
accepting it
Well, the arguments against symbol versioning have not really changed
since ca 2005, so we do we need to discuss this again
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Matthias Clasen
matthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote:
If we autogenerate the version script, I think Matthias can be bribed into
accepting it
Well, the arguments against symbol
On 18/05/10 18:50, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
The most important to us as a distribution is being able to
automatically maintain dependencies for libraries that add symbols
without changing their soname. For example g_malloc_n was introduced
in glib 2.24.
We currently need to manually test each
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
Well, the arguments against symbol versioning have not really changed
since ca 2005, so we do we need to discuss this again ?
Please kindly point me to a list of arguments as I was not a
participant in that
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Matthias Clasen
matthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
Well, the arguments against symbol versioning have not really changed
since ca 2005, so we do we need to discuss this again ?
Please
26 matches
Mail list logo
