the sorry saga of the talloc soname 'fix'

Steve Langasek vorlon at
Tue Jul 7 22:43:19 GMT 2009

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:45:32PM -0400, simo wrote:

> > If we up the .so number to 2 then you can also see the brokenness by
> > looking at the dependencies, because we are explicitly marking the ABI
> > as having changed. It is easy to see the brokenness using ldd, or by
> > using dpkg. 

> No for libraries that compiled talloc statically ldd will tell you
> nothing. As for dpkg you may be lucky if someone explicitly marked
> libtalloc as a dependency. But then it depends on how it was done.

> normally manual dependencies are of the form: libtalloc >= 1.2.0

Er, definitely not.  The convention with dpkg-based distributions is to
include the sover as part of the package name; there is no 'libtalloc'
package in Debian, only 'libtalloc1'.

But this does *not* solve the problem that libtalloc1 and libtalloc2 may be
installed, and the dependency tree for a given binary may include both of
them.  We can make libtalloc2 Conflict: with libtalloc1 to force an atomic
upgrade of all related packages, but symbol versioning is the more elegant

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                          
slangasek at                                     vorlon at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list