| 1 |
On 2014-01-22 10:21, justin wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 21/01/14 18:04, Sébastien Fabbro wrote: |
| 3 |
>> * given the number of bugs, we should keep the linking to the |
| 4 |
>> reference |
| 5 |
>> names libraries, so we could eselect providers without re-compiling |
| 6 |
>> all |
| 7 |
>> reverse dependencies. We could do this in the open sourced providers |
| 8 |
>> by |
| 9 |
>> changing the soname of the libraries we compile, and in the binary |
| 10 |
>> ones |
| 11 |
>> (mkl,amcl...) with a link script generated library. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't get this point. Why do we need to play around with sonames? |
| 14 |
> Doesn't this bring more problems and maintainer burden then letting the |
| 15 |
> consumer recompile reverse dependencies? Are the libs all ABI |
| 16 |
> compatible? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
All libs are supposed to be ABI compatible. For soname look at my |
| 19 |
previous post. |
| 20 |
If you want to interchange libblas on the fly you need to have the same |
| 21 |
soname |
| 22 |
for the library. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Francois |
Archives