3 ms·
If someone updates a library incompatibility, they deserve what they get. That's why shared libraries have versioning. In the mobile space, it would be even m
by binarycrusader 13y ago
If someone updates a library incompatibility, they deserve what they get. That's why shared libraries have versioning.
In the mobile space, it would be even more beneficial if platform holders and ISVs actually followed this; the memory and space usage savings could be substantial.
- binarycrusader 13y agoI'm uncertain why someone would downvote my comment above, but shared library versioning is a real thing, and it is a best practice: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries... https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedings/als00/2000papers/papers/full_papers/browndavid/browndavid_html/ https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedin... Linux distributions heavily depend on this for the GCC runtime libraries (such as libgcc_s); it's how they provide backwards compatibility. Many operating system distributors also rely on symbol versioning for their shared libraries as well so they can compatibly evolve interfaces for consumers. So my original point stands, if someone incompatibly updates a shared library without accounting for versioning, they're doing it wrong.