Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-03 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Given that the parameter is called --version-script, I think >> "version-script" would be a better name for the module. > > Even the suffix "-script" is a bit of a misnomer, IMO. I would call it > 'symbol-versions'. If you agree with that, I'll ren

Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-03 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon Josefsson wrote: > Given that the parameter is called --version-script, I think > "version-script" would be a better name for the module. Even the suffix "-script" is a bit of a misnomer, IMO. I would call it 'symbol-versions'. If you agree with that, I'll rename the 'visbility' module to 's

Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-03 Thread Simon Josefsson
Thinking even more, "ld-version-script" seems like a better module name, to avoid confusion with any other non-LD "version" scripts. The patch below also makes the visibility.texi be part of the gnulib manual. I assume this was just a mistake and not intentional? I have pushed the patch below, b

Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-03 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible writes: > Simon, > >> However, do you object to installing the original module to gnulib? > > Now that you have shown that it provides access to functionality that > libtool does not provide portably, I don't object. Great. > But I would find it useful to revise the doc and the mod

Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-02 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon, > However, do you object to installing the original module to gnulib? Now that you have shown that it provides access to functionality that libtool does not provide portably, I don't object. But I would find it useful to revise the doc and the module name 1) in order to clarify that it's

Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-02 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I won't dispute that ELF version symbol scripts are overrated because >> they aren't portable. But they do provide some features, and together >> with a scheme like you suggest you get more complete cross-platform >> versioning. > > ... at the cos

Re: shared library symbol exports and versioning

2009-03-02 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon Josefsson wrote: > I won't dispute that ELF version symbol scripts are overrated because > they aren't portable. But they do provide some features, and together > with a scheme like you suggest you get more complete cross-platform > versioning. ... at the cost of maintaining the same inform