This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: Soname bump
On 08/15/2011 06:51 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 04:36 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 08/08/2011 04:48 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
>>>> Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> There has been a soname bump to libffi.so.6. Why was this? Will older
>>>>> packages linked against libffi.so.5 still work? Can I perhaps just symlink
>>>>> libffi.so.6 -> libffi.so.5 ?
>>>>
>>>> Some debug functions that have should never have been exported were
>>>> removed from production builds a few months ago (src/debug.c). It's
>>>> highly unlikely anybody was using them, but I wanted to stick with the
>>>> rules defined in libtool-version. Here's the ChangeLog entry...
>>>>
>>>> 2011-02-11 Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>
>>>>
>>>> * libtool-version: Update.
>>>> * Makefile.am (nodist_libffi_la_SOURCES): Add src/debug.c if
>>>> FFI_DEBUG.
>>>> (libffi_la_SOURCES): Remove src/debug.c
>>>> (EXTRA_DIST): Add src/debug.c
>>>> * Makefile.in: Rebuilt.
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. This is a PITA because we need a new libffi for ARM Fedora 15 --
>>> the old libffi doesn't work -- but we can't change the soname in the
>>> Fedora package. I'm not sure exactly what to do.
>>
>> What's the issue with bumping the soname? Can't you just rebuild
>> dependencies?
>
> Yes, but that will mean that packages will be broken by the libffi update,
> so the Fedora update mechanism will have to push new versions to hundreds
> of thousands (millions?) of users. If I change the libffi package I don't
> think there's any way to confine the soname bump to ARM, even though only
> ARM needs it.
You should be able to rebuild the packages; I didn't see any necessary source
changes. However not bumping the soname can result in undefined symbols in
existing binaries.
Matthias