Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Excellent, I look forward to the PIC patch that debian's openafs > packages use going away (I just outright dropped them when I forward > ported the packaging to 1.3.82, since I don't particularly care about > the PAM module).
Debian packages for 1.3.82 (still with the PIC stuff for right now) are coming shortly for sid; I've finished the packaging and just want to do a bit more testing with 2.6 kernels to make sure nothing strange happened. >> Should I believe that people are paying attention to that and honoring >> it? Or would you welcome a patch to embed the current version into the >> shared library name, so that the library would instead be, for >> instance: >> libafsrpc-1.3.82.so.1.0.0 > I would hope that OpenAFS libraries stick to ABI compatibility within an > SONAME; otherwise, the debian packages will end up having to be > processed manually (in NEW) for every new upstream version that is > released. That seems like a major pain. Yes. If the ABI isn't stable, I believe the above is the right thing to do regardless and will provide a patch, but it's a significant disincentive for packaging the libraries and would incline me towards just linking things against the _pic versions of the static libraries. (Assuming folks see some merit in that patch.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
