From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3751 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Preparing to release 0.9.12 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:08:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20130726020859.GP4284@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130724200221.GA4256@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130725104459.3c29fc34@vostro> <20130725161654.GH4284@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130725195955.25cbc101@vostro> <20130726003851.GA20873@newbook> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374804556 26909 80.91.229.3 (26 Jul 2013 02:09:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:09:16 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3755-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Jul 26 04:09:15 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V2XSz-0003Iw-QC for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 04:09:13 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7770 invoked by uid 550); 26 Jul 2013 02:09:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 7760 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2013 02:09:12 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130726003851.GA20873@newbook> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3751 Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 05:38:51PM -0700, Isaac wrote: > > The so versioning will not help for C++ related things. The most > > important use case I had in mind is that, package managers that use > > soversions for automatic dependencies, can insert proper "require > > version XXX or later of this .so". That is, if we built with musl X, we > > can detect that from .so, and record it. And later ensure that musl X-1 > > will not satisfy the newly built package's dependencies. Especially > > important when we are introducing new symbols. > > On Debian, there's the "symbols" system; this lists all symbols with the > version they appeared in, and the tools look through the symbols and > find the lowest version providing all the symbols. > > But as a standard rule, _added_ symbols _do_ _not_ call for a new SONAME, > since they do not break the ABI. Good point. In that case, it sounds like it would be wrong to have the SONAME of musl reflect the version, no? Rich