This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] [java] bump libgcj soname
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
- Cc: GCJ-patches <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:37:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] [java] bump libgcj soname
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55365991 dot 4030806 at ubuntu dot com> <20150421141125 dot GW1725 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <55365BB2 dot 4080603 at ubuntu dot com> <20150421141924 dot GX1725 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <55365EE0 dot 8070202 at ubuntu dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:29:52PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 04:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:16:18PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> On 04/21/2015 04:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:07:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>>> bump the libgcj soname on the trunk, as done for every release cycle,
> >>>
> >>> Is that really needed though these days?
> >>> Weren't there basically zero changes to libjava (both libjava and
> >>> libjava/classpath) in the last 2 or more years?
> >>> The few ones were mostly updating Copyright notices, minor configure
> >>> changes, but I really haven't seen anything ABI changing for quite a while.
> >>
> >> yes, the GCC version is embedded in the GCJ_VERSIONED_LIBDIR
> >>
> >> which is defined as
> >>
> >> gcjsubdir=gcj-$gcjversion-$libgcj_soversion
> >> dbexecdir='$(toolexeclibdir)/'$gcjsubdir
> >
> > But why is that an argument for bumping it? If both GCC 5 and GCC 6 will
> > (likely) provide the same ABI in the library, there is no reason not to use
> > the same directory for those.
>
> but currently there are different directories used (gcjversion already changed
> on the trunk) and compiled into the library. Do you mean that gcjsubdir should
> be just defined as gcj?
What depends on BASE-VER sure, that is bumped automatically and should track
the gcc version. But the soname, which is an unrelated number, there is no
point to bump it. If you have a packaging issue, just solve it on the
packaging side, but really there is no point to yearly bump a soname of
something that doesn't change at all (and is really dead project for many
years).
Jakub