<<On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:08:00 -0400, chas williams - CONTRACTOR <c...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil> said:
> I guess you should ask openafs-users how onerous it would be for them > to rebuild their local tools or how many have local tools linked > against shared libraries. Speaking for myself, my local tools are built against archive libraries rather than shared libraries, because Debian at the time did not ship shared libraries for OpenAFS. I had to manually build a set of PIC archive libraries in order to make my tools (which are themselves delivered as a shared library), and I expect most such tools actually take te form of a high-level-language binding. (In my case, my tools are written in Ruby and include a Ruby module wrapping the protection server interfaces.) One of the things you can do with symbol versioning is to mark each symbol exported as being part of the official ABI or internal to the implementation. This page <https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/LD-Version-Scripts.html> describes how to do symbol versioning with GNU libtool, and also how to hide internal-to-the-implementation symbols in shared libraries (if OpenAFS isn't doing that yet). -GAWollman _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
