On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:18:45AM +0100, Armin K. wrote: > > That's rather not correct. > > If a package a is dynamically linked to package b and package b gets > updated to new version that doesn't have an ABI break (soname in b v1.2 > is same as in b v1.0, ie libb.so.1), you *don't* need to recompile > package a or anything else. > > In case of ABI break (b v1.4 has libb.so.2 and b v1.2 has libb.so.1), > only the packages that link against libb.so.1 have to be recompiled > against libb.so.2, NOTHING ELSE. > > In the gnutls case, you didn't need to recompile anything since there > was no ABI break (there was, but it was reverted since it was not > intentional). > > So even when you upgrade glibc from version 2.12 to version 2.19, you > don't need to rebuild anything, since libc.so.6 in 2.19 still exports > the same interfaces it did in 2.12 and also some aditional ones that got > introduced later, but they are not important since they are not used by > the software compiled against 2.12. > That is a correct statement of how things ought to be. But many developers are like me - we make mistakes. For a distro which ships binaries, no big deal. Similarly, fixing an existing BLFS-7.5 with latest gnutls works.
But there have been many cases over the years where minor changes cause accidental breakage. I'm thinking of changes to headers - those sorts of things only show up when building a fresh system. Based on your previous mail, I've moved gnutls, glib-networking, and their required/recommended dependencies, to _much_ earlier in my build so that I can hope to exercise most possible users. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
