[lsb-discuss] lsb dynamic linker name for LSB 4.0

[Dallman, John]

> > we can certainly document a procedure for making sure that
> > doesn't happen, in general how to get to "built for the lowest
> > usable LSB version" should be written up whether or not we
> > do anything with the linker name.

Absolutely. 

> Agreed, but that procedure should be as simple as possible; one of my
> arguments for not bumping the soname is to avoid make such a procedure
> (or our tools) more complex unless benefit really justifies it.

I agree that not changing the soname makes it simpler this time 
round. But if we find that it needs to be changed for LSB 5, and 
then not again until LSB 8, or whatever, things start to get 
confusing. That's why I'm arguing for maintaining the current 
pattern unless there's a major positive reason to change it. 

-- 
John Dallman
Parasolid Porting Engineer

Siemens PLM Software
46 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1DP
United Kingdom
Tel: +44-1223-371554
john.dallman at siemens.com
www.siemens.com/plm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theodore Tso [mailto:tytso at MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:33 PM
> To: Wichmann, Mats D
> Cc: Dallman, John; lsb-discuss at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] lsb dynamic linker name for LSB 4.0
> 
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:05PM -0600, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> >
> > > Worse yet, one could imagine an application which was built using
> the
> > > LSB 4.0 build tools, but if it just so happened that the
> application
> > > only used interfaces that were allowed by LSB 3.2, would have
> worked
> > > on an LSB 3.2 distribution --- EXCEPT THAT LSB 4.0 required a
> > > different soname.  In other words, for no good reason.  That alone
> > > seems to be the best arguement for ruling out an soname bump.
> >
> > we can certainly document a procedure for making sure that
> > doesn't happen, in general how to get to "built for the lowest
> > usable LSB version" should be written up whether or not we
> > do anything with the linker name.
> >
> 
> Agreed, but that procedure should be as simple as possible; one of my
> arguments for not bumping the soname is to avoid make such a procedure
> (or our tools) more complex unless benefit really justifies it.
> 
> 
> 	- Ted