Am Donnerstag, 6. August 2026, 04:57:44 Chinesische Normalzeit schrieb Florian Weimer: > * Bruno Haible: > > > Hi Adhemerval, > > > > Thank you for working on this. > > > >> it breaks our previous policy of not adding retroactively symbols. > > And therefore this breaks versioned dependencies in most RPM-based > distributions.
Not being familiar with RPM packaging, would that also be the case if we release a 2.44.1 version from the 2.44 branch immediately after backporting that commit? > > > Why not version 2.44.1 ? I guess the symbol versioning mechanism must > > support > > version numbers of the form <major>.<minor>.<subminor>, because in the past, > > some symbols were assigned to versions GLIBC_2.3.3 or GLIBC_2.3.4, for > > instance. > > We still have lots of old symbols like that. But we don't really know > how software reacts to new symbols of that structure. > > The gnulib problem occurs only after a rebuild. An adverse reaction > to the 2.44.1 symbol structure might happen just after a glibc update, > with old applications. Hard to tell beforehand if this is a good > trade-off. > > A quick 2.45 release might be another option. > > But I'm not quite convinced any of this is necessary. > -- PD Dr. Andreas K. Hüttel [email protected] Gentoo Linux developer (council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge
