[PATCH] debuginfod: export DEBUGINFOD_SONAME macro in debuginfod.h

Mark Wielaard mark@klomp.org
Tue Dec 8 23:07:04 GMT 2020


Hi Dmitry,

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 06:15:40PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:02:41PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-12-06 at 15:28 +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Finally, I am actually using the Makefile VERSION variable in a
> > > > downstream (DTS) to make sure the so name of all libraries is different
> > > > from the system one. This is just a minor issue though, and I should
> > > > probably upstream a tweak to do this upstream so others can also more
> > > > easily use this.
> > > 
> > > Do you suggest to keep the Makefile VERSION variable?
> > > It would become an unused variable with the remaining part of the patch
> > > applied unless you upstream the tweak you are talking about.
> > 
> > Lets just remove it for now. I'll figure something out for my special
> > case.
> 
> Mark, would you like a re-spin of the patchset containing the VERSION variable
> removal, or would you prefer an additional patch removing this variable?

I am not very worried what happens to VERSION in the Makefile.am
file. I think it gets unused in your final patch, so just remove it in
the patch that makes it unused.

I did look at the patchset and do have some comments. Patch 1/3 looks
fine. If you could merge 2/3 and 4/3 that would be nice. I think that
makes things more clear what is going on. In Patch 3/3 I think we can
now use DEBUGINFOD_SONAME in the dlopen call. The code does sanity
checks to make sure all needed symbols are there, so it doesn't
necessarily need the precise VERSION. And that way the code does look
the same as other code that would actually want to dlopen
debuginfod.so.1. Or is there a reason to prefer the full name?

Thanks,

Mark


More information about the Elfutils-devel mailing list