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: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:27:24 -0700
- 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> <576B718A dot 8020104 at ubuntu dot com>
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
and libraries from the same commit should have the same soname on all
distros.
--
H.J.