[PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

[Timo Teräs]

Rob Landley wrote:
>> No, the idea is not to have two versions installed all the time. The idea
>> is to allow the coexistance temporarily while package manager is upgrading
>> system.
> 
> Isn't this what static linking is for?
> 
>> If we targeted flashable upgrade, then this would not be needed as
>> everything would be updated in one go.
> 
> Or the package manager would have to be statically linked?  (Yeah there's some 
> implementation details making sure the stuff it calls during its operation 
> still works, too, changing the $PATH to point to a static busybox covers a 
> multitude of sins...)
> 
>> And yes, it's not full solution. Deep library wise dependencies can be
>> temporarily broken. And yes, we do need stable API for uclibc at some
>> point. But since we don't have that yet, the temporary install of two
>> libraries during upgrade is the best option.
> 
> Or you could just statically link the package manager?

Yes, static linking would be more bullet proof. But either the user, or
the package manager needs jump through hoops in this case. There needs to
be the static versions compiled, they need to get installed, then finally
replaced with dynamic versions, etc.

>> As conclusion was previously, it does not make sense to set ABI_VERSION
>> due to gcc dynamic-linker issues. But it'll help distro which tries to
>> keep compatibility on packages level (sets the dependencies right and
>> wants to perform clean upgrades).
> 
> *shrug*

I'm not saying everyone needs to use this. I'm not asking support for this.
I'm not even recommending this for anyone.

I only want to do it myself, because it solves my immediate problems
with less work and more user friendly way than static linking. The package
manager is there to handle the other issues.