[FFmpeg-devel] Round 2: Symbol versioning
Tue Dec 29 14:22:35 CET 2009
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 04:07:02PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
> >> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:35:14AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Thus if you introduce a libavutil with same soname but enabled versioning
> > and with the shlibs stuff set correctly by hand
> > any package rebuild with it could not be installed as long as an older
> > libavutil of that soname was installed.
> > An update to one with versioning
> > would be required if a rebuild application or lib where installed.
> > This should prevent 1 of 3 bugs in ld.so
> > at the expense of hundreads of otherwise unneeded dependancies.
> these dependencies are already implemented archive wide, so the absolute
> number of (versioned) dependencies does *not* increase.
well yes if you count them that way ...
but the dependancies become stricter than they otherwise would be
> > But at this point you have not introduced the new libavutil with new
> > ABI and new soname.
> > Thats something you have apparently postponed for later and i wonder
> > how you plan to do it without hitting bugs 2 and 3 It sure can be done
> > with many additional (otherwise unneeded) dependancies
> That depends on several factors, mainly on how fast this transition will
> be implemented and at what stage of the release cycle for the respective
> distro we are.
Well, if your chain of reasoning is that simply waiting long enough will
make the conflicts likeliness aproach zero, then i dont agree.
I myself still have a few packages installed on some computers that i
did not upgrade and that dont even exist anymore in current debian.
xmms is one of them, i didnt "upgrade" to xmms2 and wont in the future
> I'd really like to get this deployed distro wide first and decide then
> how to proceed from there afterwards in order to avoid mixing too many
> (related) issues unnecessarily.
noone is stoping you from introducing symbol versioning with stricter
than needed dependancies in debian. I think its not the ideal approach
and even less so when one considers more than a single package.
> > and i claim that its very easy to miss some of these dependancies and
> > in the end what you create with all these dependancies is not that far
> > from the rebuild the world you are trying to avoid.
> I claim that this is not true, because of the mechanics of the shlibs
> system and me as package maintainer, but this is something that has to
> been shown by practice, not theory?
I understand how the shlibs system works around the assertion bug, i dont
see how it will help against the other bugs.
> >> Besides, the whole stunt is coordinated with the debian release team,
> >> who have supervised many similar transitions before. I'm therefore very
> >> confident that the current approach (w/o patching the linker) is proven
> >> (and therefore "good enough") for debian.
> > Its also proofen one can swim across the english channel, still trying to
> > make this an argument that this method of crossing the channel is "good
> > enough" is probably only successfull as british humor
> I'm not a native speaker, I meant prooven as in "bew?hrt", not
> "bewiesen" (both german)
So you mean its along the line of
The number of people stepping on a mine and blowing their legs off is small
enough so we continue with storing the mines in the shool yard
if thats what you call prooven then yes we agree
> >> The issues Michael is adressing seem to me rather farfetched and very
> >> unlikely to occur in the field when deploying them in debian in the
> >> way I intend to do. For ffmpeg upstream, I can see no regressions
> >> either.
> > The issues arent much more farfetched than the ones you try to fix with
> > introduction of versioning
> Well I can show you dozens of bug reports that shows that people *are*
> already hit by the problem I intend to fix with symbol versioning. The
> issues you adress of course also exist, but are way less likely to occur
> in practice,
> and impossible to hit if you follow the recommended (as in
> the release notes) upgrade procedures closely.
i belive it if i see what that procedure exactly would require to be done
and that actually is enough.
> > Besides with my patch introducing versioning should become a much simpler
> > task without all the unexcpected dependancy needs. That sure would make
> > the release teams work and all involved maintainers work easier for future
> > such changes ...
> Yes, and that's why I think they shouldn't be implemented in debian
> only, but in binutils/glibc upstream. But then we probably have to deal
> with Drepper?
I wont deal with drepper :)
What i will do is fix issues with my patch people notify me off
Its not me who is inconvenienced by this, at least not more than any other
user. Its the various distros and maintainers who have to deal with
very hard to debug bugs due to the linker mislinking symbols and with all
the prooven procedures to introduce versioning and workaround these issues.
With my patch you just enable versioning and thats it
Without my patch you need to update the shlibs dependancies, enable versioning
and closely follow the upgrade procedures (which must be quite involved as
you just refer to it but dont tell us what exactly that would involve) that
said that doesnt mean that procedure works, until i see it iam still
suspecting it will not introduce all dependancies one needs to avoid bugs
2 and 3
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into
despotisms. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel