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

RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects

To: "'Robert Heller'" <heller@deepsoft.com>
Subject: RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
From: "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 18:16:24 -0700
Cc: openldap-technical@openldap.org
Content-language: en-us
In-reply-to: <20180523003723.DA7F426C1F29@sharky3.deepsoft.com>
References: <0f9401d3f206$547d9c00$fd78d400$@acm.org> <20180522201616.8F8C526C1F29@sharky3.deepsoft.com> <0ff101d3f22b$ec586d50$c50947f0$@acm.org> <20180523003723.DA7F426C1F29@sharky3.deepsoft.com>
Thread-index: AQH+JjAOg/d0OVqVgVYrJOsuFT3tyQIvIf0yAgdgwiYCg9CeDKOyR+qw

> From: Robert Heller
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 5:37 PM
> 
> You can suppress the version numbers with the "-avoid-version" LDFLAGS
> option

Cool, thanks for the pointer. Then the question is whether this is
acceptable for upstream to deploy in general, or if I should just tweak the
OpenBSD port to do so? Quanah or Howard :)?

Thanks.

Follow-Ups:
- RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com>

References:
- .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>
- Re: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com>
- RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>
- RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects
  - From: Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.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