the sorry saga of the talloc soname 'fix'

tridge at tridge at
Tue Jul 7 11:43:08 GMT 2009

Hi Andrew,

 > I think Volker is right, that given we can easily (for some definition
 > of easily) avoid changing the ABI, then it's an easier way out of this
 > mess.

The whole argument of not changing the ABI is based on saving our
'users'. As I have demonstrated, all of our users are completely
broken whatever happens. All of them mix in static and dynamic
versions of talloc. The only place it is a bit saner is in debian
experimental, and the whole point of experimental is that it breaks
all the time - it offers no promises whatsoever.

There is nothing I can do to fix that. There is no point in taking on
an extra maintainence burden for zero benefit, and I fundamentally
reject the idea of the core of Samba taking on extra maintainence
burdens like this due to the needs of the shared libs. That approach
will lead to us drowning in ABI hacks very quickly.

 > This is more than just a cleanup of possible memory leaks, isn't it?

right - it is fixing a fundamental bug in the talloc API. Keeping the
old semantics for the existing 'users' is the approach Simo has
taken. I don't _want_ the old semantics to be kept, as they are

The 'users' need to recompile anyway, as they are all mixing static
and dynamic linking. At least with a soname bump they get a warning
from the linker if there is some lib they use that is not recompiled.

So no, I am not going to accept this patch from Simo. I still want him
to revert his patch. If he doesn't then I will revert it instead.

Cheers, Tridge

More information about the samba-technical mailing list