This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: Soname bump
On 08/15/2011 08:09 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
> Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> writes:
>
>> On 08/15/2011 07:35 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Yes, but that will mean that packages will be broken by the libffi update,
>>>> so the Fedora update mechanism will have to push new versions to hundreds
>>>> of thousands (millions?) of users. If I change the libffi package I don't
>>>> think there's any way to confine the soname bump to ARM, even though only
>>>> ARM needs it.
>>>
>>> Andrew and I just discussed this on IRC, the result of which is that I
>>> just reversed the ABI changing fix from the git libffi repo, and will
>>> try to push out 3.0.10 this week in order to publish a Fedora 15 update.
>>>
>>> Then I'll immediately re-apply this patch to the 3.0.11 train for F16.
>>
>> and having two libffi5's with a different set of symbols?
>
> That's not what I'm saying. libffi 3.0.10 would have the same set of
> symbols as 3.0.9 and also have the .5 so version number.
>
> Matthias and I just discussed this on #libffi. He pointed out that 361
> packages in Ubuntu depend on libffi and he's been building them with the
> libffi 3.0.10 release candidates for a while. Forcing him back to a .5
> soname means forcing a rebuild of all of those packages, so... I'll
> make a 3.0.11 on the heals of 3.0.10 with just the debug symbol / soname
> change so that Ubuntu can pick this up and avoid a major rebuild. I'll
> see about putting 3.0.11 into Fedora 16 as well.
thanks! I didn't notice that the removal of the debug symbols would be reverted
too.
Matthias