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

Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson.org
Fri Feb 5 08:07:07 UTC 2010

cascardo at minaslivre.org writes:

> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 02:04:29PM -0200, cascardo at minaslivre.org wrote:
>> I completely agree with you in this. I would have waited for any other
>> ABI break to use the opportunity to start using symbol versioning. I
>> don't find any other advantage to use symbol versioning besides avoiding
>> ABI breaks and soversion bumps. I'm going to read Ulrich Drepper's
>> articles again to try to find out any other advantage of using symbol
>> versioning and any reason to break ABI when starting using symbol
>> versioning.
> Quoting from [0]:
> "Depending on whether the DSO an object is linked against had symbols or
> not, the reference to the DSO requires symbols or not."
> But this would be interpreted as: our binary has not been linked to a
> DSO with symbols. So its reference do not require symbols. However, it
> does not say that it must NOT have symbols. And I think they mean
> "symbol versions" by symbols.
> The following paragraph may shed some light into how we can make this
> work without breaking the ABI. I'm just not sure that we are still in
> time to do this for gsasl. But for the other libraries, that's sure we
> could try to start using symbol versioning without breaking anything. I
> still haven't read it with attention and did not reach any conclusions.
> I'm going go make some experiments with real code before concluding
> anything anyway.

I'm still not able to translate this into a conclusion (i.e., patch)
that applies to our situation.  If you find out anything that could be
applicable here, I'm very interested to learn it...


More information about the Pkg-xmpp-devel mailing list