This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] PowerPC64 ELFv2 ABI 6/6: Bump ld.so soname version number
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:37:10 +1030
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC64 ELFv2 ABI 6/6: Bump ld.so soname version number
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311131535530 dot 24404 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <201311131832 dot rADIWWl1006890 at d06av02 dot portsmouth dot uk dot ibm dot com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 07:32:32PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > > Joseph Myers wrote:
> > The version there is wrong - it should be GLIBC_2.19, not GLIBC_2.18,
> > since the 2.18 release did not in fact support little-endian.
>
> Alan, any comments on that?
I quite strongly disagree with Joseph here. The libc world consists
of more than just official FSF glibc releases.
We are very likely going to have a distro release off the 2.18 branch,
or at least based on source prior to the FSF 2.19 release. Correct me
if I'm wrong here, but I believe that distro glibc ought to be marked
as 2.18. (So as to differentiate it from the FSF 2.19 release. If
the distro release is marked 2.19, and the FSF 2.19 makes changes to
function interfaces then we'll be in trouble when upgrading glibc.)
Assuming I'm correct about that, then mainline glibc needs to have
2.18 as the base symbol version even though no official 2.18 release
has occurred. If the base is changed to 2.19 then there is no way to
upgrade a system using the distro 2.18, you'll get complaints about
missing GLIBC_2.18 versions from every file dynamically linked against
the distro 2.18..
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM