RFC: Don't output symbol version requirement for non-DT_NEEDED libs

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/27/2014 03:16 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> So, absent someone implementing a glibc fix, how about we just drop
> the symbol versioning for weak symbols, when their defining library
> won't be in DT_NEEDED?  Note that if "f" above was a strong symbol,
> ld will still complain with "./libb.so: error adding symbols: DSO
> missing from command line".

This seems like the wrong thing to do, particularly since it violates
the principle of least surprise. I would expect the versioned symbol
to stay versioned.

What's wrong with fixing this in glibc?

Cheers,
Carlos.