On 03/05/2013 07:59 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 14:07 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> So given that this library's use is pretty well contained, might it be
> OK to go ahead and update in F18?
Yeah, that's fine.
In the future, consider following the glibc pattern of fixing the soname
for all but truly-world-breaking changes, and using symbol versions to
annotate API additions. That way a package that uses an API introduced
in dyninst 8.2 will get an rpm Requires for foo.so(dyninst-8.2)(64bit),
which will make yum automatically search for a sufficiently new dyninst
package without breaking the soname.
Is that feasible for C++ APIs? I mean, it might be possible if you're
*really* careful about hiding class changes, but this project is not
structured that way.
Minor numbers really do not belong in sonames, for this exact
Every soname string is essentially a unique major version number.
Well, "minor" is relative, and upstream is consciously choosing not to
preserve ABI in this release, so the soname change is appropriate.