Re: Adjustments to roadmap

[u-wsnj@aetey.se]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 01:09:32PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:00:13AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

> > there are other reasons for symvers: debian is willing to
> > accept patches for a musl based debian, however they use
> > symbol versioning a lot to avoid frequently changing the .so
> > name.  i.e. if we support symvers we may be able to create
> > a musl based debian package repo without much effort or
> > maintainance work. (it is probably possible to rebuild all
> > dependent packages on every minor abi change in a library,
> > but then somebody would need to do that work and users will
> > need to download more packages on an update).

It would be interesting to have some idea about the frequency of
the cases when libraries break the ABIs and the number/percentage of
the packages which would need rebuilding because of this.

> This seems like an area where there would be concrete benefit. Any
> word from ppl interested in Debian/musl?

Indeed it would be interesting to hear from Debian.
Such a port would be of course a nice testbed and showcase for musl.

If despite the expectations this could be done without symbol versioning,
then it would also serve as an indication of the importance of the
versioning or lack thereof.

> Being that the only significant feedback on symbol versioning so far
> has been negative, I lean towards holding off on prioritizing this
> issue while we wait for more opinions or compelling reasons to support

+1
(the less developer time is consumed before the need is proven, the better)

Rune