I'd been meaning to come back to this quite a while ago, but I got sick and
that put me out for a *long* time.
I still think that *something* should be done with the ELF dep generator, but
more discussion would be helpful.
I mentioned that Debian's approach came up in discussions. On one hand,
Debian's approach seems very nice in that it gives package maintainers a lot of
control over the symbol and version sets, which works well for the situations
that Neal brings up, regarding compatible libraries. On the other hand, it
seems like Debian's approach requires library package maintainers to do 90% of
the work that would be required to actually support versioned symbols, and if
we wanted to put that much burden on package maintainers, maybe we should just
provide better tools for introducing and maintaining versioned symbols in ELF
libraries.
In any case, I feel pretty strongly that RPM needs a fall-back mechanism (such
as the one proposed in this PR) for libraries that don't have versioned
symbols, and if we reach a consensus around the *design*, I'm happy to do more
work on the implementation.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1919839535
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372/c1919839...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
