Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:04:35 -0800
From:      John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
To:        Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Cc:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/lib/csu/i386 Makefile crt0.c dladdr.3 dlopen.3 src/lib/libc/gen dladdr.3 dlfcn.c dlopen.3 Makefile.inc 
Message-ID:  <199802092204.OAA04887@austin.polstra.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:15:38 PST." <199802092015.MAA04160@dingo.cdrom.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You are presuming there won't be any new Netscape binaries?

Of course not.  Sheesh, I'm starting to suspect that you think I'm
some kind of moron.  All right, let's go over all the possible
scenarios when Netscape makes their next binary release for FreeBSD.

Scenario 1:  Netscape builds their binary on an older version of
-current, from prior to my recent change.

Outcome 1:  The binary will run on -stable as well as all versions of
-current.

Scenario 2:  Netscape builds their binary on some -2.2 branch
version (take your pick).

Outcome 2:  The binary will run on -stable as well as all versions of
-current.

Scenario 3:  Netscape builds the binary on a newer version of
-current, which contains my recent change.

Outcome 3:  The binary will run on up-to-date versions of -current.
It will not run on older versions of -current, and it will not run on
-stable.  (Unless, that is, I have already merged my recent changes
into the 2.2 branch -- which I very well might have done by that
time.)

But wait!  Isn't outcome 3 a horrible, awful, intolerable situation?
No.  It's THE NORM around here.  Applications built under -current
normally will not run under -stable.  For starters, as often as not
the libc major version numbers are different.  You are spoiled at
the moment because, in contrast to the usual situation, -current and
-stable both have libc version 3.0 at this time.

What should be done about outcome 3?  The proper solution would be for
Netscape to build two binaries, one for -stable and one for -current.
(Or, just one for -stable.  It would work under -current too.)  Again,
that's nothing new, and it's simply an aberration that it hasn't been
necessary in general recently.

Suppose Netscape doesn't do that?  Then, for people running -current,
the course is clear: update your systems.  People running -stable can
either keep running an older Netscape binary, or they can bring in the
libc.so.3.0 from -current, put it in a special directory, and do the
usual tricks with LD_LIBRARY_PATH when they run Netscape.  OR, I can
merge my changes into the 2.2 branch and take away the problem.
--
   John Polstra                                       jdp@polstra.com
   John D. Polstra & Co., Inc.                Seattle, Washington USA
   "Self-knowledge is always bad news."                 -- John Barth



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802092204.OAA04887>