[15853] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: krb5 libraries and circular dependencies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Hartman)
Fri May 28 13:43:54 2010
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:43:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1275067909.2419.674.camel@ray> (Greg Hudson's message of "Fri,
28 May 2010 13:31:49 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslr5kvvs5k.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
Greg> On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:14 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion on combining libk5crypto and
>> libkrb5. If you combine them it's important to bump the soname
>> of libkrb5.
Greg> I don't want to bump the soname of libkrb5, and I don't think
Greg> it's strictly necessary. We would only be adding symbols to
Greg> libkrb5.
Greg, I think it will be impossible for me to manage the upgrade for
Debian without bumping the soname for libkrb5. Debian goes out of its
way ((and I believe your build system on all glibc platforms does the
same) to bind symbols from libkrb5 and libk5crypto to specific
libraries. So, applications will care which library and which soname
they get their libraries from.
The things I'm most concerned about are the transitional upgrade issues
where some but not all packages depending on libk5crypto and libkrb5
have been rebuilt.
I have not previously analyzed the situation where libk5crypto continues
to provide all the symbols it used to provide at the same symbol
versions. In the other cases, though, everything needs to be rebuilt.
Based on my experience with the krb4 removal, that would only go
smoothly if the krb5 sonames changes.
I don't have a lot of time to go into detail now, but would be happy to
try and work through this.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
