On sexta-feira, 25 de outubro de 2013 10:20:46, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:39:49AM +0000, Koehne Kai wrote: > > Finally, just searching for 'libudev.so.0' on the web shows that we're > > far from the only ones who ran into problems because of this ... > > Learning that the differences between libudev.so.0 and libudev.so.1 > > are very minor somewhat helps (we can e.g. dlopen it), > > Even if it isn't that "minor" of an issue, the correct thing to do here > is to dlopen it, as that removes this type of issue completely. It's > what a number of other programs have done for years to deal with "core" > system libraries and is a valid solution for Linux.
That's what we'll do. It's just a sub-optimal solution, compared to direct & normal linking -- which is something we need to enable for distros to do. The drawbacks of this solution are: - no link-time dependency for packaging tools to detect and create the package dependency without intervention - sub-optimal resolution and calling (hand-written code worse than linker- generated PLT) - two separate codepaths for us to maintain - need to scan for both libudev.so.0 and libudev.so.1 I understand the long-term need to break binary compatibility. It's just annoying when it happens... -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
