Re: patch fixing FreeBSD shlib versioning

[Jean-Yves Lefort]

On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:37:15 +0200
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Jean-Yves,
> 
> * Jean-Yves Lefort wrote on Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:13AM CEST:
> > 
> > Ralf, could you please add the patch? It will give libraries a proper
> > major version number (by having it reflect the library ABI rather than
> > $current).
> 
> I understand this.
> 
> > It will not cause breakage since existing libraries will continue to
> > use the ltmain.sh script they ship, while version downgrades in future
> > libraries will be handled by FreeBSD port maintainers, as a version
> > bump would be.
> 
> Usually people upgrade both the macros from libtool.m4 and the ltmain.sh
> from the same Libtool distribution.  There isn't really any other safe
> way: we don't ensure compatibility of ltmain.sh with different macro
> versions.  (Libtool-2.0 will have measures in place to actually ensure
> this.)  So, yes, there is potential for breakage.

I don't understand, what has libtool.m4 to do with this?

> > The goal is to allow us to gradually fix the version numbers by
> > upgrading the libtool port and then forcing existing ports to use that
> > new libtool.
> 
> I understand this.  I've looked around, and in fact there are packages
> out there that try to compensate for the current brokenness of GNU
> Libtool versioning on FreeBSD.
>
> Now, what happens when we fix this in 1.5.24?  They need to change their
> adjustments, else their packages builds will break.  Often, this
> upgrading happens automatically, just by having a newer Libtool
> installed.

Which workarounds are you talking about?

> I'm simply feeling uneasy doing the switch in a stable series.  Applying
> it to CVS HEAD so it will be in 2.0 sounds much saner to me.  But really
> I don't know which scenario is worse: not applying to 1.5.24 is
> certainly a burden to FreeBSD packagers/ports people.

In both cases, it'll take some time for a majority of vendors to
switch to the new libtool (1.5.24 or 2.0). It is therefore planned to
force FreeBSD ports to use the fixed libtool. If you add this to 2.0,
I'm concerned about the fact that it might not be possible to force it
back onto software using 1.5 because of the differences between 2.0
and 1.5.

> I simply would like another opinion on the choice to make.

Since the cc'ed people have provided no other opinion it is fair to
assume that they agree.

> (And I'd like to know whether FreeBSD ships with other patches against
> Libtool that are good to have in GNU Libtool: if we break compatibility,
> let's do it all at once.)

No.

Thanks for your quick reply,

--
Jean-Yves Lefort

address@hidden
http://lefort.be.eu.org/

pgpELpoVAKM5R.pgp
Description: PGP signature