From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8389 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?0KDRi9GB0Yw=?= Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Adjustments to roadmap Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:39:32 +0700 Message-ID: <20150828183932.0f03a8d5@r2lynx> References: <20150828024347.GA7624@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150828072422.GE11263@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1440761936 30881 80.91.229.3 (28 Aug 2015 11:38:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:38:56 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8401-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Aug 28 13:38:55 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZVHzi-0000bG-W2 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:38:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30540 invoked by uid 550); 28 Aug 2015 11:38:51 -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 30510 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2015 11:38:50 -0000 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_RECEIVED, NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 In-Reply-To: <20150828072422.GE11263@example.net> X-Mailer: claws_mail Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8389 Archived-At: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:24:22 +0200 u-wsnj@aetey.se wrote: > > I don't think the status quo is a reasonable option. We should > > either teach GCC that musl targets don't support symbol versioning, > > and make sure apps/libs' build systems detect this, or we should > > make them work. My leaning is towards the latter. > > I'd rather prefer the former. Otherwise supporting an approach chosen > for unrelated reasons somewhere else imposes a certain complexity > cost on musl and on any packager/integrator who does not need > versioning. > > Rune > I agree with this too. What are the real reasons raised to reconsider support for symbol versioning? How other not glibc build environments currently handle them?