Symbol versioning - Samba

This is a discussion on Symbol versioning - Samba ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Green, Paul wrote: > 1. Please do not require GNU ld. > > 2. Please support static linking. > > 3. Please do not require symbol versioning. > > VOS does not use GNU ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Symbol versioning

  1. Re: Please vote! (Re: Symbol versioning)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Green, Paul wrote:
    > 1. Please do not require GNU ld.
    >
    > 2. Please support static linking.
    >
    > 3. Please do not require symbol versioning.
    >
    > VOS does not use GNU ld. We don't have symbol versioning. We don't even
    > have static linking (yet). I expect we'll have it within the year or so,
    > but we are not planning on implementing symbol versioning.


    Paul,

    I think Michael or Volker already added a way to perform
    static linking with libwbclient but this really degardes
    the usefulness of the the API. But technically is workable
    in the current tree I think.





    cheers, jerry
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFISFb/IR7qMdg1EfYRAnz8AJ9B/5os+PBe2wkMZZYLBUsbKI1X4gCdF2U/
    4j2l1pctrYonOig9pMsvmUk=
    =+zZZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: Please vote! (Re: Symbol versioning)

    On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:31:58PM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
    > I've done some further testing with compat libraries.
    > And they work fine, but only without symbol versioning.
    > Compat libraries together with symbol versioning works for some cases
    > and maybe there's some more magic to get it working for every case,
    > but I don't nḱnow a solution yet:-(


    To be honest, I tried to avoid any linker magic most of the
    time, so I don't really know what benefits we might get from
    symbol versioning. Your message indicates that they don't
    fulfill all the benefits you had hoped for. Given that and
    the fact that Jerry seems not to like the idea I would be
    fine with removing it again. But this vote is not based on
    my own experience, it's just from reading this thread, so
    feel free to ignore me :-)

    Volker

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFISOIxUzqjrWwMRl0RAik8AJ9aNNOenRMAd4XSaJjlg2 NcAWq0LQCdE3xb
    auK6VyYbkYlsMM3omNUooDw=
    =EEZ+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  3. Re: Please vote! (Re: Symbol versioning)

    Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've done some further testing with compat libraries.
    >>And they work fine, but only without symbol versioning.
    >>Compat libraries together with symbol versioning works for some cases
    >>and maybe there's some more magic to get it working for every case,
    >>but I don't nḱnow a solution yet:-(
    >>
    >>I'm fine with removing symbol versioning again...
    >>
    >>So please vote now, what we should do.



    I'm a versioning afficianado, but I recommend that it not be used
    in *production* unless a workaround is in place to get the same
    results for non-gnu linkers.
    The libfoo.so.2 approach would probably suffice, so I reccomend
    it for production versions of Samba until we have gnu linkers for
    pretty much everything.

    --dave
    --
    David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify
    Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
    davecb@sun.com | -- Mark Twain
    (905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583
    bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2