FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-10-2009, 09:30 PM
Roberto C. Sánchez
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

[My apologies in advance for the cross-posting.]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:42:36AM +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >>
> > So, I've been trying to build the Debian package with the latest from
> > the 0.8 branch on github. It seems like the SONAME thing is not
> > completely resolved. I am seeing this after building:
> >
> > roberto@miami:~/src/luabind-upstream$ objdump -p ./bin/gcc-4.3.2/debug/libluabindd.so.0.8.0 |grep SONAME
> > SONAME libluabindd.so.0.8.0
>
> Yes, that's the expected result, isn't it? The reasoning was that it's
> too difficult to have ABI-compatibility, so we just use the complete
> version number as the SONAME. "bjam install" will create the unversioned
> symlink.
>

I am curious as to what people generally think of how the libluabind
SONAME will be going forward. I know that certain packages (like
libssl) have the complete version in the SONAME, but I can't imagine
that this is a really good idea. Is this a showstopper for having
libluabind in Debian, or just for a stable release? Is this
discouraged, but otherwise permissible?

I've looked in the Debian library packaging guide and it does not say
one way or the other.

I'd appreciate any insights and/or comments.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
 
Old 03-11-2009, 07:01 AM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> writes:

> [My apologies in advance for the cross-posting.]
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:42:36AM +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> >>
>> > So, I've been trying to build the Debian package with the latest from
>> > the 0.8 branch on github. It seems like the SONAME thing is not
>> > completely resolved. I am seeing this after building:
>> >
>> > roberto@miami:~/src/luabind-upstream$ objdump -p ./bin/gcc-4.3.2/debug/libluabindd.so.0.8.0 |grep SONAME
>> > SONAME libluabindd.so.0.8.0
>>
>> Yes, that's the expected result, isn't it? The reasoning was that it's
>> too difficult to have ABI-compatibility, so we just use the complete
>> version number as the SONAME. "bjam install" will create the unversioned
>> symlink.
>>
>
> I am curious as to what people generally think of how the libluabind
> SONAME will be going forward. I know that certain packages (like
> libssl) have the complete version in the SONAME, but I can't imagine
> that this is a really good idea. Is this a showstopper for having
> libluabind in Debian, or just for a stable release? Is this
> discouraged, but otherwise permissible?
>
> I've looked in the Debian library packaging guide and it does not say
> one way or the other.
>
> I'd appreciate any insights and/or comments.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto

The ABI needs to be compatible across all versions with the same
SONAME. If that means every upstream release gets a new SONAME than I
curse upstream for breaking their ABI all the time but the SONAME
would still be right. This should not really be a showstopper but
maintaining this won't be too easy. Every new upstream release will
need a binary package name change, NEW procesing and a library
transition. You better hope that the API doesn't change as often so
binNMUs can be done.

One would hope that at some point there will be a libluabindd 1.0.0
which would then have a more stable ABI.

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-12-2009, 08:18 PM
Adeodato SimĂł
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

* Roberto C. Sánchez [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:30:19 -0400]:

> I am curious as to what people generally think of how the libluabind
> SONAME will be going forward. I know that certain packages (like
> libssl) have the complete version in the SONAME, but I can't imagine
> that this is a really good idea. Is this a showstopper for having
> libluabind in Debian, or just for a stable release? Is this
> discouraged, but otherwise permissible?

It’s certainly not desirable. Do you have an estimation of how many
reverse dependencies libluabind will have? Goswin’s remark about API
compatibility is also an important one.

Cheers,

--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-12-2009, 08:34 PM
Roberto C. Sánchez
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:18:59PM +0100, Adeodato SimĂł wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sánchez [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:30:19 -0400]:
>
> > I am curious as to what people generally think of how the libluabind
> > SONAME will be going forward. I know that certain packages (like
> > libssl) have the complete version in the SONAME, but I can't imagine
> > that this is a really good idea. Is this a showstopper for having
> > libluabind in Debian, or just for a stable release? Is this
> > discouraged, but otherwise permissible?
>
> It’s certainly not desirable. Do you have an estimation of how many
> reverse dependencies libluabind will have? Goswin’s remark about API
> compatibility is also an important one.
>
Currently, none of the luabind packages have reverse dependencies
(except for stuff like libluabind-dbg depending on libluabind0).

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
 
Old 03-12-2009, 08:39 PM
Adeodato SimĂł
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

* Roberto C. Sánchez [Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:34:20 -0400]:

> > It’s certainly not desirable. Do you have an estimation of how many
> > reverse dependencies libluabind will have? Goswin’s remark about API
> > compatibility is also an important one.

> Currently, none of the luabind packages have reverse dependencies
> (except for stuff like libluabind-dbg depending on libluabind0).

Yes, but I asked about an *estimation* of how many there *will* be.

--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-12-2009, 08:41 PM
Roberto C. Sánchez
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:39:37PM +0100, Adeodato SimĂł wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sánchez [Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:34:20 -0400]:
>
> > > It’s certainly not desirable. Do you have an estimation of how many
> > > reverse dependencies libluabind will have? Goswin’s remark about API
> > > compatibility is also an important one.
>
> > Currently, none of the luabind packages have reverse dependencies
> > (except for stuff like libluabind-dbg depending on libluabind0).
>
> Yes, but I asked about an *estimation* of how many there *will* be.
>
Good question. I do not know, but I would be surprised if it were more
than a handful (10 at most).

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
 
Old 03-20-2009, 12:07 AM
Roberto C. Sánchez
 
Default Naming library with proper SONAME

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:30:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> [My apologies in advance for the cross-posting.]
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:42:36AM +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > >>
> > > So, I've been trying to build the Debian package with the latest from
> > > the 0.8 branch on github. It seems like the SONAME thing is not
> > > completely resolved. I am seeing this after building:
> > >
> > > roberto@miami:~/src/luabind-upstream$ objdump -p ./bin/gcc-4.3.2/debug/libluabindd.so.0.8.0 |grep SONAME
> > > SONAME libluabindd.so.0.8.0
> >
> > Yes, that's the expected result, isn't it? The reasoning was that it's
> > too difficult to have ABI-compatibility, so we just use the complete
> > version number as the SONAME. "bjam install" will create the unversioned
> > symlink.
> >
>
> I am curious as to what people generally think of how the libluabind
> SONAME will be going forward. I know that certain packages (like
> libssl) have the complete version in the SONAME, but I can't imagine
> that this is a really good idea. Is this a showstopper for having
> libluabind in Debian, or just for a stable release? Is this
> discouraged, but otherwise permissible?
>

I have done some further digging and found a blog post [0] that explains
the issues with templated C++ code and ABI. What it boils down to is
that if templates are used in a library, it really cannot have an ABI.
I also found a bug report [1] against gecode that was closed with a
similar explanation. The solution implemented by the libgecode
maintainer in Debian was to increment the SONAME for each release.

That said, I think that the "best" solution is to have a different
SONAME for each release, based on the use of template code. Since it is
currently being set as the library's release version, that is probably
the way to go.

Additionally, I guess it is important for me (as the person packaging
the .deb) to know what the planned release frequency is going to be.
The reason is that each SONAME change will result in a new package being
created and in a library transition (should libluabind gain any reverse
dependencies). Each time that happens, the package will have to pass
NEW processing.

Regards,

-Roberto

[0] http://julipedia.blogspot.com/2005/10/c-templates-and-abi.html
[1] http://www.gecode.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org