[PATCH libpciaccess] Support for 32-bit domains

Michel Dänzer michel at daenzer.net
Mon Aug 15 01:03:29 UTC 2016

On 11/08/16 06:16 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 22:58:34 +0000
>> From: Keith Busch <keith.busch at intel.com>
>> If preserving libpciaccess ABI is of high importance, I think the only
>> other option is to just ignore domains requiring 32-bits.  That should
>> be okay for us since X should not need the devices in these domains
>> anyway. I'll send a patch for consideration.
> To be honest, bumping the shared library major is perfectly fine with
> me.  The current "thou shalt never bump the shared library major"
> mantra that seems to has taken hold of the Linux community makes no
> sense.  Why have a shared library major at all if you can never bump
> it?

Of course it can be bumped. My points are:

* The ABI must not be broken without bumping the SONAME.

* The benefits and costs of bumping SONAME need to be considered
  carefully, taking the downstream distribution POV into account (as
  they are the entities which ultimately have to deal with ABI issues).

> In any case the impact of bumping the libpciaccess shared library
> should be fairly limited as it's not widely used outside of X.

I agree, though at the very least, distributors would need to ensure
that Xorg and its drivers don't end up linked against different
libpciaccess SONAMEs.

Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list