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

[cascardo at minaslivre.org]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 01:50:37PM -0200, cascardo at minaslivre.org wrote:
> 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
> necessary.
> 
> > 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
> 
> Regards,
> Cascardo.


BTW, take a look at [0]. It doesn't add any other new information. Just
that I had planned to do something in the likes of this, but didn't
consider bumping soversion.

[0] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xmpp-devel/2009-August/000256.html
-------------- 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/20100204/11ddd1ce/attachment.pgp>