From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:17:09 +0300 From: Alexey Tourbin To: ALT Linux Team development discussions Message-ID: <20091116121709.GW10659@altlinux.org> Mail-Followup-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions References: <200911150336.12883.ledest@gmail.com> <20091115070652.GA15510@mw.office.seiros.ru> <200911152200.02524.ledest@gmail.com> <20091115211443.GR10659@altlinux.org> <20091116000546.GA32432@wo.int.altlinux.org> <20091116004438.GU10659@altlinux.org> <20091116094601.GB15838@newmaster.mivlgu.local> <20091116104828.GB32099@wo.int.altlinux.org> <20091116113659.GV10659@altlinux.org> <679044850911160401m409da414i4dd1a74e1f23a262@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+epxrXWOh++2HLjY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <679044850911160401m409da414i4dd1a74e1f23a262@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [devel] symbols into dependencies X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:17:11 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --+epxrXWOh++2HLjY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 03:01:03PM +0300, Damir Shayhutdinov wrote: > > On the other hand, we can simply assume that symbols should not be moved > > across the libraries. =A0The worst thing that can happen then (if a sym= bol > > does move) is that we need to rebuild a bunch of packages, only to > > relink their binaries and update dependencies. > > > > However, note that, as per tgetent, the binaries are actually going to > > change upon relinking. =A0This indicates that the ABI has changed, too. > > So the rebuild is not completely useless. >=20 > Have you thought about C++ libraries and their mangling? And the fact > that many of C++ exported symbols in such libraries are not, in fact, > the part of the API, they are only exported because C++ cannot control > their visibility on the ELF symbol level. I'm talking about private > methods of classes. I don't get what you're trying to say, sorry. There is nothing special about C++. > Or C++ libraries aren't worthy enough to consider? --+epxrXWOh++2HLjY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksBQsUACgkQfBKgtDjnu0b0MQCgiMXa25XMrPLbEV59DIPymW/f 5RgAoL4rm/xReGxBtY+sguP+16WapH49 =ENv/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+epxrXWOh++2HLjY--