This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Releases 2.27 and 2.26.1
- From: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:20:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: Releases 2.27 and 2.26.1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <2D5A1F96-A731-4D41-9C77-FFB069F1115F at adacore dot com> <CAMe9rOrExdme4V=oPPFV9_oMm-V69CS_y_=BBNUGrdkTy0evQQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160623005041 dot GC20200 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOrh5iafSfibFp4WtMSoGoREy+XByi77kFot6emXCJraiQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
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.
Matthias