[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do we need to bump the shared library version for 2.4.0?
From: |
Joe Orton |
Subject: |
Re: Do we need to bump the shared library version for 2.4.0? |
Date: |
Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:53:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 03:54:21PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Joe Orton <address@hidden> writes:
> > Having looked into this, I can't see why that would break. dlsym() will
> > still find the symbols since libgnutls-extra.so is linked against
> > libgnutls; the wording in POSIX is very specific that this must be the
> > case. Attached a test case which finds gnutls_malloc via dlopen of
> > libgnutls-extra.so for PoC.
> >
> > So I think it's very reasonable to argue that the ABI of libgnutls-extra
> > has not changed in this case and no soname bump is necessary.
>
> But what about non-ELF or even systems without shared libraries?
The dlsym wording is from POSIX; the only platforms I'd expect it might
be different are the few Unixes with only pre-POSIX dynamic loaders
(AIX, HPUX). This libtool -version-info choice doesn't make any
difference for static library builds on any platform AFAIK.
> Possibly we could decide that systems that doesn't behave like Linux
> here are of too little concern to us, and that they will need to remove
> the old libgnutls* when they install gnutls 2.4.x.
I'm not sure why that's a concern, trying to mix and match libgnutls and
libgnutls-extra from different versions would not be guarnateed to work
anyway, surely? (e.g. libgnutls-extra from 2.4 could depend on
libgnutls symbols introduced in 2.4; soname versioning would not prevent
the former being used with 2.2, current concens aside)
Regards,
joe