On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:18:38 -0400 (EDT) > > Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote: > > > > > > > Not lazy, but if nothing else is linked against it then it should be > > > > safe to do whatever you want. You aren't going to break anyone else's > > > > binaries. > > > > > > I'm pretty sure that there are external consumers of these things, they're > > > just site-local tools that are not in Debian. > > > > 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. > > I don't see why. Incrementing SONAME is not a hardship for us, nor should > it be a hardship for our consumers, as they can keep the old library > around until they need to rebuild. > It is the clearly Correct thing to do, since we have changed our ABI, > regardless of whether we believe there are any external consumers of the > changed ABI. > > Am I missing something? I didn't see that debian apparently is keeping the shared libraries in their own package. So no, I don't see a problem with this. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
