2014/1/16 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net>: > On Thu, 16.01.14 17:33, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> >> 2014/1/16 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl>: >> > I am also a bit worried about so-bumps: currently we have very nice >> > backwards >> > compatibility, without any API removals. -daemon, -id128, -journal, -login >> > are all still .so.0. But libsystemd-bus (libsystemd now) is much harder to >> > keep this way, among other reasons, because it's much bigger, and much more >> > experimental. >> >> I'd prefer if the libraries were kept separate, at least for the ones >> for which it is possible without it beeing to painful. >> At least libsytemd-daemon should imho be kept separate with a stable API/ABI. >> We already have 10+ reverse dependencies of that library in Debian and >> the list is constantly growing. > > Sure, but as mentioned, if we end up merging libsystemd-daemon.so into > libsystemd.so, both would be parallel installable and would not result > in symbol clashes. Thus, the transition should be smooth... (Also note > that it would still be the same scope, so if you are concerned about > pulling in incompatible code into non-systemd boots, there's shouldn't > be a problem)
Well, since you plan to drop the .pc files I wouldn't really call the transition smooth, as every package would need sourceful changes to their configure check to now use a different .pc file name. Having to touch every affected package is something I'd like to avoid especially since I don't quite see the benefit of folding libsd-daemon into libsd. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
