Symbol visibility reduction is definitely a good thing. I wouldn't bother too much removing the versioning, but it's going to be more work to keep it up to date. If you don't plan on keeping ABI retrocompatibility on the long term I would suggest to roll this back and go with just symbol visibility through libtool <https://www.flameeyes.eu/autotools-mythbuster/libtool/symbols.html>.
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes [email protected] — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ On 3 September 2014 23:34, Sean McGovern <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Petri & Diego, > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Please note that symbol versioning only makes sense if you plan to >> *replace the ABI of a function in a later version*. If you do that, then >> no, building against a new version and trying to run it against an old >> version will not work. >> >> If you don't plan to make changes like that, symbol versioning is totally >> useless. >> >> Also, please don't make it optional, but only conditional on the OS, >> because mixing builds with and without versioning across distributions >> would jsut be a huge headache for no gain. >> >> > With these concerns, maybe instead of symbol versioning I could/should > just convert this to a symbol visibility reduction script? Or should I just > discard my patch entirely? > > -- Sean McG. > > _______________________________________________ > libbluray-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/libbluray-devel > >
_______________________________________________ libbluray-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/libbluray-devel
