Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:06:00 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bug in pkg_add? Message-ID: <20020731150600.GL52296@squall.waterspout.com> In-Reply-To: <3D47F933.31C553E8@FreeBSD.org> References: <xzpr8hk41jr.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3D47D344.8E23AECF@FreeBSD.org> <20020731130208.GH52296@squall.waterspout.com> <3D47F933.31C553E8@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:50:27PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Such things are usually symlinks, not the actual shared library, > > and are occasionally used for configure scripts to detect the > > version installed (a valid usage IMHO). > > You are not quite correct. Shared libraries with embedded version > number look like libfoo-X.Y.so.Z, format libfoo.so.X.Y is relict from > the aout days and doesn't have any other meaningful purpose today. No, I am correct. You are right in that it *was* used for aout library naming. However, it can be used for detecting library version numbers, and the other way you mention is perfectly valid too. And when it is installed, it is typically installed as a symlink to the actual library, which is usually marked by the major version of the library released. > > Removing symlinks for no reason breaks FreeBSD's compatibility > > with the rest of the world, which installs them. > > I strongly disagree. Shared libraries in FreeBSD should be named > libfoo.so.X, or at least libfoo-X.Y.so.Z, all other ways should be > discouraged and threated as broken, no matter whether the library was > installed as a part of the base system or as a part of a port. This > contributes to overall OS consistency, which always was a strong > selling point of FreeBSD as compared to Linux (for example) and > according to my practice usually doesn't create any significant > additional overhead or any compatibility problems "with the rest of > the world". *WHY* are they broken? What exactly breaks if we install these symlinks? It does create a significant compatibility problem if a user is unable to use FreeBSD as a development platform without needing to use ports for everything. Furthermore, exactly how does removing these symlinks make FreeBSD more consistent? FreeBSD shouldn't change the method which upstream vendors use to install their libraries, because consistency is not possible without breaking with a given two upstreams' chosen path, and changing the upstream's choice takes too long to be worth it (considering how trivial this is), or may even be impossible. Users don't give a flying rat's behind exactly how library names are marked with version numbers. It is only relevant to developers IMHO. > However, I do agree with you that probably it is a good time to say > good bye to old aout hacks in bsd.port.mk, as old aout systems are > unikely are able to use today's bsd.port.mk and many important ports > in the tree anyway. We should have axed it ages ago with the rest of the 2.x related bit rot. Hell, even 3.x support should be axed too solely based on that nobody is maintaining it and it's just cluttering up bsd.port.mk. When was the last time anyone here used a 3.x or earlier machine with the current ports tree? Regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020731150600.GL52296>