On 12/12/2014 01:49 PM, [email protected] (Niels Möller) wrote: > Now, maybe we have to break the ABI > for 3.1 anyway, to introduce versioned symbols. I don't yet know for > sure if an soname change is necessary or not.
My experience is that tools built against a library with unversioned symbols can work fine when linked against a library with versioned symbols, but that it produces warnings from the dynamic linker. This came up recently for libgpg-error, which recently added symbol versioning: https://bugs.debian.org/771100 https://bugs.debian.org/765430 In short, i don't think an SONAME bump is functionally necessary just for introduction of versioned symbols, though lack of an SONAME bump may introduce some cosmetic changes for people who don't rebuild against the newer version. > Does anyone know if applications are using base64_encode_raw, despite > it's status as undocumented? in the debian project, it looks like there are code examples from aria2 that use base64_encode_raw, and it's also used in rtmpdump's librtmp: https://codesearch.debian.net/results/base64_encode_raw/page_0 We can probably get the aria2 examples fixed, but librtmp seems more problematic. --dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
