From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 6 00:09:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F84F16A4CE for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:09:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from basement.kutulu.org (211.215.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.215.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67F943D45 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:09:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kutulu@kutulu.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (platypus.jungle [192.168.69.2]) by basement.kutulu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2207957; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <416337CE.5040901@kutulu.org> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:09:50 -0400 From: Mike Edenfield Organization: KutuluWare Software Services User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: krinklyfig@spymac.com, ports@freebsd.org References: <4160259A.3070708@FreeBSD.org> <200410041744.43292.krinklyfig@spymac.com> <20041005013257.GB1462@isis.wad.cz> <200410041853.12931.krinklyfig@spymac.com> In-Reply-To: <200410041853.12931.krinklyfig@spymac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3-BETA7 available X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:09:46 -0000 Joshua Tinnin wrote: > > Whoa ... ok, so: > > ldd /usr/X11R6/bin/* | grep libm.so.2 > > alone shows that quite a lot on my box is going to need rebuilding ... I I would suspect that any port which performs any significant functions, especially graphical functions, will need to be rebuilt. It would be safer to just do what you suggested and `portupgrade -af`. As for libmap.conf, the format is basically: oldlib newlib so there would be a single like that looks like this: libm.so.2 libm.so.3 However, I initially thought this wouldn't work. I thought it only worked if the interfaces for the two libraries were identical -- but if the interfaces were identical, why the need for a library version bump? But several people have suggested it so I guess it couldn't hurt. --Mike