[Gcl-devel] Re: gcl/axiom/acl2/maxima versioned depends on binutils-dev

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:41:48PM -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> OK, given what you state, the 'natural' way to do this of course is to
> have gcl dynamically link against libbfd -- then soname changes
> automatically make the old package uninstallable without a recompile.

Don't do this.

> Part of the issue is the bfd soname numbering system.  Minor point
> changes are deemed backward binary incompatible.  Were it more like
> libc, for example, the situation would be more tolerable.  I'm
> wondering if now that binutils is at 2.15, future development might
> follow a more conventional major/minor numbering scheme maintaining
> backward binary compatibility for a longer period of time.

No.

BFD is not an exported library; its API is subject to continual and
random flux.  The only reason Debian installs a shared version is that
it saves a lot of disk space.

I see that binutils-dev includes the libbfd.so and libopcodes.so
symlinks.  IMVHO, it shouldn't.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz