Do we need to bump the shared library version for 2.4.0?
Joe Orton
joe at manyfish.co.uk
Wed Jun 4 12:42:54 CEST 2008
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 04:31:31PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 3) Don't increment the shared library version at all.
>
> The justification would be that we haven't removed any symbols, all
> symbols in libgnutls-extra are still available via libgnutls and work
> the same way. The only thing that would break here is if someone is
> dlopen'ing libgnutls-extra.so and calls the openpgp related
> functions. Strictly speaking I'm not sure this is a valid approach,
> since we HAVE removed symbols from libgnutls-extra.
Having looked into this, I can't see why that would break. dlsym() will
still find the symbols since libgnutls-extra.so is linked against
libgnutls; the wording in POSIX is very specific that this must be the
case. Attached a test case which finds gnutls_malloc via dlopen of
libgnutls-extra.so for PoC.
So I think it's very reasonable to argue that the ABI of libgnutls-extra
has not changed in this case and no soname bump is necessary.
joe
More information about the Gnutls-devel
mailing list