From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 18:31:15 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C3F1065670 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:31:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375B78FC0A for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:31:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id n1QIUukl023421; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:30:56 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:30:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:30:56 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Ed Schouten In-Reply-To: <20090226182543.GY19161@hoeg.nl> Message-ID: References: <20090226180756.GX19161@hoeg.nl> <20090226182543.GY19161@hoeg.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Renaming all symbols in libmp(3) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:31:15 -0000 On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Ed Schouten wrote: > * Daniel Eischen wrote: >> Why don't you add symbol versioning to libmp, so that old >> binaries will still work, but new ones will get the new >> symbols by default. Hmm, will that work without bumping >> SHLIB_MAJOR? You might want to play around with it and >> see. > > Well, even without symbol versioning this could be done, by just making > a __strong_reference() between the symbols, but I decided not to do so. > I think solutions like these are perfect when just renaming/removing a > couple of symbols, but because we're basically touching everything, I > thought we'd better just use the old approach. Well, as long as you're in there, maybe you should add symbol versioning anyway, even after a library version bump. Seems like it would be easy since there aren't that many symbols. -- DE