Re: HEADS UP: shared library bump, symbol versioning, libthr change

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Alexander Kabaev wrote:

> On 5/11/07, Daniel Eischen <eischen_at_vigrid.com> wrote:
>> 
>> At a minimum, all libraries that have been symbol-versioned need
>> to be bumped, though.  How about if I commit everything except for
>> the bumping of non-symbol-versioned libraries?  After a later
>> discussion, re_at_ can decide whether or not to bump the remaining
>> libraries.  Is this acceptable?
>> 
>
> Not really. You've wrote it several times before and I kept forgetting to ask
> you why do you think libraries getting versioned symbols need to be
> bumped. There might be a valid reason for this, but it somehow escapes me
> and I would greatly appreciate you helping me to get this straight. I do not
> think breaking binaries linking to symbols to which they had no business to 
> link
> in the first place is reason good enough. And testing done by Kris did show
> us that the percentage of such binaries extremely small, small enough to be
> treated as a noise.

I think it was because I thought libraries and applications that
are linked without symbol dependencies would always get the
latest version of the symbol, not the earliest version of
the symbol.  But if I recall correctly from prior email from
you, you should get the earliest version of the symbol in
lieu of no recorded symbol dependency?

>
> I certainly wouldn't mind you committing everything _but_ version bumping.
>
> Back to libc.so.7 bump mistake. I an this >< close to actually suggest
> that we back libc.so.7 bump out  and do things RIGHT for a change.

No argument here, go for it.

-- 
DE