Re: [RFC] posix: Export posix_spawn_file_actions_{addchdir, addfchdir} (BZ 34437)

Am Donnerstag, 6. August 2026, 04:57:44 Chinesische Normalzeit schrieb Flor=
ian Weimer:
> * Bruno Haible:
>=20
> > Hi Adhemerval,
> >
> > Thank you for working on this.
> >
> >> it breaks our previous policy of not adding retroactively symbols.
>=20
> And therefore this breaks versioned dependencies in most RPM-based
> distributions.

Not being familiar with RPM packaging, would that also be the case if we re=
lease
a 2.44.1 version from the 2.44 branch immediately after backporting that co=
mmit?

>=20
> > Why not version 2.44.1 ? I guess the symbol versioning mechanism must s=
upport
> > version numbers of the form <major>.<minor>.<subminor>, because in the =
past,
> > some symbols were assigned to versions GLIBC_2.3.3 or GLIBC_2.3.4, for
> > instance.
>=20
> We still have lots of old symbols like that.  But we don't really know
> how software reacts to new symbols of that structure.
>=20
> The gnulib problem occurs only after a rebuild.  An adverse reaction
> to the 2.44.1 symbol structure might happen just after a glibc update,
> with old applications.  Hard to tell beforehand if this is a good
> trade-off.
>=20
> A quick 2.45 release might be another option.
>=20
> But I'm not quite convinced any of this is necessary.
>=20


=2D-=20
PD Dr. Andreas K. H=C3=BCttel
[email protected]
Gentoo Linux developer=20
(council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge