[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects

To: openldap-technical@openldap.org
Subject: Re: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
From: Ryan Tandy <ryan@nardis.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:39:55 -0700
Content-disposition: inline
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nardis.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=iD3RPSHQ+HMEu8a74wUybFF89mwZADRxUzSk9sZClEI=; b=SkwcqzMNo7kgp6NKq1qgVQzXqTbobrBl7xy+uKTkhNJUCuz9yCmhyXR4pqy1B6F/kT aDdBFKGBfE4fgupEi76tJQbxPFIVgTfgw4wSvOLmhCc+JIxGaKbTvB8mwBfCX2eAvM/P 4thRfYOhQ6VrJb+48e/JdzzH8QKpzbRoitHGs=
In-reply-to: <e10156d0-6384-b49a-7517-f37a50eef3ec@symas.com>
Mail-followup-to: openldap-technical@openldap.org
References: <0f9401d3f206$547d9c00$fd78d400$@acm.org> <20180523005559.bk7nw3nzxem346fq@kiwi.nardis.ca> <e10156d0-6384-b49a-7517-f37a50eef3ec@symas.com>
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:48:09AM +0100, Howard Chu wrote:

I'd say it's a mistake to remove the version info, since modules tendto be intimately tied to the specific version of OpenLDAP for whichthey were built.

It's exactly that intimate coupling that makes me feel like the versioninfo doesn't add much value. For myself I tend to consider modules asbelonging to the specific slapd they were built with.

References:
- .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>
- Re: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: Ryan Tandy <ryan@nardis.ca>
- Re: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: Re: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
Next by Date: RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread