On 8/26/2018 4:03 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
26.08.2018 10:47, L A Walsh пишет: ...
If you want to support multiple versions, that's usually possible -- the only case where they are needed is where you provide multiple *incompatible* interfaces in the same library and a linking program uses more than one of them at the same time. Then it needs the versions of each of the interfaces.
However, that has been universally considered a bad thing to do.
And how exactly ranting on this list is going to help?
Informing suse about similar practices that they have implemented -- even against the upstream developers recommendations hasn't helped when posted to suse's bugtrack. It seems useful to discuss the point here to see if there is any justification for such practice on suse's part before going to the upstream vendor.
Why do not you contact developers of util-linux or even better binutils?
I'm sure they do not mean any harm, they are simply ignorant of how to properly handle dynamic libraries and as soon as they get your (educated advice)[sic] question they [will] immediately drop this stupid useless support for symbol versioning.
--- I asked the same question on util-linux, though I didn't add your description of it. Would you like me to give them your heart felt opinion? I assume you are speaking in your role as an open suse contributor? FWIW, I'll stand by my comment that having a label inside a library for no apparent purpose that doesn't match the version number on the outside (derived from the filename) and doesn't allow default matching by older versions against the older symbols nor current versions (w/o the bogus internal version). Turning on *optional* module versioning in the kernel can allow a module to be compiled against multiple kernel versions. That's not the case here. So it doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose. There can be a use for symbol versioning -- if different symbols implement different features in different versions, but such practice is usually frowned up. More to the point, though, it would imply multiple copies of a symbol in different versioned sections. Such is not the case in most of the utilities (or any I've run it with so far, though I see evidence that it might be the case with some of them. Creating multiple interfaces by the same name is not good practice even though it may sometimes be necessary. To use that mechanism on all modules would appear to be laziness unless there is a better reason. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org