[PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

[Natanael Copa]

2010/5/3 Lennart Sorensen <lsorense at csclub.uwaterloo.ca>:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:14:38AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why would it need to be replaced with a dynamic version?  Why could the
> package manager not always be staticly linked and ust stay that way?

because you want avoid 10 times bigger binary? (alpine linux's
apk-tools is 90k dynamic and 900k static due to libcrypto for
hashing/signing)

Yes for upgrade, I'll probably recommend do that with static version
and maybe even tell people to manually replace /bin/busybox with
/bin/busybox.static.

Still i think beeing able to set ABI_VERSION is a good idea.

>> 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.
>
> Well user friendly to who?  Less work for who?  It sounds like just
> linking the package manager and related tools staticly solves everything.
> Sounds like the least work of all.

But the price is that extra bloat for libcrypto, libz and uclibc dupe
code in there. I do understand that some people are willing to pay
that price. No problem. Current git is good. Everyone is happy. Lets
move on.

-- 
Natanael Copa