Scott James Remnant
scott at netsplit.com
Thu Jun 16 22:26:36 CDT 2005
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
> particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some
> poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when
> individual symbols were added to a package -- apparently, many packages
> would actually be happy with glibc 2.1 or so (at least on i386), but we have
> no way to track this...
I was just thinking the same with this thread ...
The principal problem with the "shlibsyms" stuff was that in order to
track when symbols are added to a package, you need the list of the set
of symbols that were in the last version -- and as the source packages
are put together before the binary, the source package wouldn't contain
the updated set of symbols.
One "easy" way would be to simply make it an error for there to be any
new symbols while building a source package -- so you'd have to update
the table before building so it gets put into the source; this is a bit
(It also could have repercussions for buildds, if there are symbols that
only exist on a particular architecture.)
I haven't come up with another yet.
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050617/2f54ffdc/attachment.pgp
More information about the ubuntu-devel