Re: Releases 2.27 and 2.26.1

[Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>]

On 23.06.2016 15:27, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> On 23.06.2016 05:41, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 02:36:09PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>> We should correct sonames:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20049
>>>>
>>>> What exactly is wrong with sonames?  If you build with
>>>> development=true you get the date included in the soname, if not, you
>>>> don't.  That seems good to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is fine for master, but not for release branch. On 2.26 branch,  I got
>>>
>>> libbfd-2.26.0.20160614.so  libbfd.so                      libopcodes.la
>>> libbfd.a                   libopcodes-2.26.0.20160614.so  libopcodes.so
>>> libbfd.la                  libopcodes.a
>>>
>>> On release branch, we should change soname only when ABI is changed.
>>
>> we don't do that by default, just the 2.26 release was made in development mode.
>>  I don't mind if the soname changes to 2.26.1 for a point release.  Plus in the
>> past distributions were also reminded to use their own soname for distro builds.
> 
> On release branch, we should change soname only when ABI is changed

so how do we know when the ABI changes?  In the past I saw build failures on the
branches for some architectures, and I'm then usually working around these by
building the new binutils with a binutils having a different soname for the
shared libs.

> and libraries from the same commit should have the same soname on all
> distros.

impossible.  You (upstream) are even recommending to change the soname for
distro builds. In any case, there is only a handful of packages which need
rebuilds if you change the soname. This is handled on the distro side.

Matthias