Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:36:07 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/lib/libcrypt Makefile src/lib/libcrypt Makefile Message-ID: <37EA2CC7.6654633D@scc.nl> References: <199909231253.QAA02741@tejblum.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: > > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > This is comparing apples with peers. Interpreters either supply > > versioning information to the source code or they don't. If they do, > > then it should be used to handle incompatibilities in a user friendly > > way. I they don't, then you obviously don't have a choice, other than > > writing backwards compatible code as much as possible. > > ELF is an interpreted language. ELF (Executable and Linking Format) is not a language. It's a file format. > The interesting now part of the program would look somewhat like this: > INTERP /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 > NEEDED libcrypt.so.2 > NEEDED libc.so.3 If ELF and interpreted languages were similar, then why aren't we programming with version numbers in every freaking statement? > (The INTERP line is handled by the kernel in a way similar to '#!' line > in a script. The rest is handled by the *ELF interpreter*. --- I just > want to convince you that it is indeed _very_ similar) The difference is, like you said, that /bin/sh doesn't contain a version number in it's name. Don't stretch your point, you're being silly. > > Shared libraries have versioning information. Use it! > > This is an illusion. "Version number" is just a part of > the name, no more. I could call my shared library 'foo.bar.baz', and > it would work. No, by convention, libc.so and libc5.so are different libraries. libc.so.5 and libc.so.6 are different versions of the same library. What does ``-lmd4 -lmd5'' mean to you? I hope you just have compiled with md4 and md5 support and not mixed two versions of you md library... > > Don't start the versioning discussion all over again. Instead, continu > > the discussion on -hackers, please. > > Sorry for the huge delay in that discussion. But there on -hackers I > suggested a far more radical and different thing than what is discussed > now. (Moreover, my arguments in that discussion are quite different > than here.) IMO it would be better to agree on this topic, before we > continue that. It's basicly the same topic. The trigger may be different, but the underlying assumptions and ideas are very clearly visible (not just yours, but anyones). > (W.R.T. your sigset_t changes (in case your wondered): I started to think > (after some Peter's words) that any ideas that restore compatibility can > be implemented (if they are agreed by the people, of course) later your > changes that breaks the compatibility. Indeed, I only want compatibility > for -RELEASEs, and -current may be broken it this respect for some time. > I am not 100% sure about it, though.) I'm not quite sure what you're saying. -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37EA2CC7.6654633D>