From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8421 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-wsnj@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Adjustments to roadmap Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:45:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20150830174518.GH11263@example.net> References: <20150828024347.GA7624@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150828072422.GE11263@example.net> <20150828183932.0f03a8d5@r2lynx> <20150828171818.GC7833@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150830112128.77511bbc@r2lynx> <20150830044654.GJ7833@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150830121353.71d24c36@r2lynx> <20150830053037.GK7833@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150830090009.GH3609@port70.net> <20150830170932.GN7833@brightrain.aerifal.cx> 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 1440956756 11312 80.91.229.3 (30 Aug 2015 17:45:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:45:56 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8433-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Aug 30 19:45:56 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 1ZW6fy-0005VS-7H for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:45:54 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5779 invoked by uid 550); 30 Aug 2015 17:45:52 -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 5759 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2015 17:45:52 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe07.swip.net; client-ip=91.109.247.173; envelope-from=u-wsnj@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150830170932.GN7833@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8421 Archived-At: 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