[Pkg-xmpp-devel] gsasl_1.4.0-2_i386.changes REJECTED

cascardo at minaslivre.org cascardo at minaslivre.org
Thu Feb 4 15:50:37 UTC 2010

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:47:37PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> cascardo at minaslivre.org writes:
> >> Yes, I'm beginning to suspect this is the only way out -- however it is
> >> very unfortunate that ADDING symbol versioning to a shared library
> >> actually breaks the ABI.  Compare libidn, the API has been stable since
> >> 2002 or 2003 or so, but adding symbol versioning this breaks.  It would
> >> be nice to find a way were old applications can also find the old
> >> symbols in a versioned library.
> >> 
> >
> > I agree. I ended reading gnu libc loader code to understand the bug
> > someone reported and ended finding out it was due to symbol versioning.
> > I may dig out the code again and point out the section to blame for
> > this. But I think the best thing to do in case it's not possible to not
> > break the ABI is to just stay out of symbol versioning until you have to
> > break it for any other reason.
> >
> >> I'm going to ask on the gnulib list if anyone has any bright ideas here.
> >
> > If you find out anything, please tell. I'd like to know.
> I have posted this plea for help now:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs/20569
> One question is that if it makes sense to revert to unversioned symbols
> now that applications are already linked to versioned libraries.  I
> would need to increment the shared library version for that change too,
> as far as I can tell, and then I could as well increment the shared
> library version AND continue to use versioned symbols in that new ABI.
> Incrementing the shared library version is arguable what I should have
> done when starting to use versioned symbols, though.

I didn't grasp this last sentence. Do you find it arguable to increment
soversion when starting using versioned symbols? What do you mean by
arguable? I find it undesirable. But if it breaks ABI, I'd say it's

> There could be some speed advantages in symbol versioning, but I'm
> wondering if it is really worth these pains.  I hope I'm just missing
> some basic insight...
> Btw, is this mailing list archive somewhere?

It is at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xmpp-devel/.

> /Simon

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xmpp-devel/attachments/20100204/d7ad47f6/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-xmpp-devel mailing list