Do we need to bump the shared library version for 2.4.0?

Joe Orton joe at
Wed Jun 4 12:42:54 CEST 2008

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 04:31:31PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 3) Don't increment the shared library version at all.
>    The justification would be that we haven't removed any symbols, all
>    symbols in libgnutls-extra are still available via libgnutls and work
>    the same way.  The only thing that would break here is if someone is
>    dlopen'ing and calls the openpgp related
>    functions.  Strictly speaking I'm not sure this is a valid approach,
>    since we HAVE removed symbols from libgnutls-extra.

Having looked into this, I can't see why that would break.  dlsym() will 
still find the symbols since is linked against 
libgnutls; the wording in POSIX is very specific that this must be the 
case.  Attached a test case which finds gnutls_malloc via dlopen of for PoC.

So I think it's very reasonable to argue that the ABI of libgnutls-extra 
has not changed in this case and no soname bump is necessary.


More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list