Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

* Howard Chu:

> Michael Ströder wrote:
>> On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
>>> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on
>>> Pthreads. Which means that now
>>> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must
>>> actually be linked with the
>>> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really
>>> important to have a single-threaded
>>> LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the
>>> standard library?
>> 
>> Mainstream Linux distributions started to remove libldap anyway.
>> So +1 to abandon it.
>
> I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name. We can
> completely drop the "libldap_r" name or just keep it as a symlink
> for a while, removing it after a year or so.

Hasn't everyone who ships a single library standardized on libldap_r?

Fedora wants to unify libldap and libdap_r as well, and my guidance
was to use a soname with libldap_r, too.

When was the last soname bump for libldap_r?  Around 2008?  Dropping
the symbolic link would result in an unncessary (at this point) soname
bump.

(Note that the symbolic links are important for glibc at least: the
dynamic loader will only load one copy of the library and treat the
other names as aliases.)