[SCM] Samba Shared Repository - branch master updated - release-4-0-0alpha8-154-g826ee30

tridge at samba.org tridge at samba.org
Wed Jul 1 22:14:11 GMT 2009

Hi Jeremy,

 > What about Metze's suggestion, wouldn't that keep the bugfix
 > without breaking the ABI ?

It's a neat idea certainly, but I wonder how long we have to keep it

It isn't completely without cost, as it creates a new trap for
programmers. If someone forgets to #include <talloc.h> in some module
in their application but they use these parts of the talloc API then
they will not get a compile/link error, they'll get these ABI
compatibility functions. In this case the two functions are very
similar, so it would probably cause very few problems, but if we ever
want to get rid of these ABI compat functions then we'll need to bump
the soname number anyway.

I don't want the tail wagging the dog in Samba. I don't want the fact
that some of our code is used in shared libraries to constrain the way
we develop Samba, and how we fix bugs. With .so numbering we don't
need to be constrained and we can fix bugs in the best way we can

If talloc was some massive library and each time we up the soname
number we cost people another GB of disk, then sure, we might be
reticent to do it. 

As it is, talloc is tiny, the cost of upping an soname number is tiny,
and it means we get a clean fix in the code without backwards compat

Cheers, Tridge

More information about the samba-technical mailing list