Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:10:02 -0700 From: Pascal Hofstee <caelian@gmail.com> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: "'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libarchive vs. libtool Message-ID: <1129219802.912.2.camel@synergy.odyssey.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <434E7A91.8060800@freebsd.org> References: <200510130551.j9D5pcO4015466@repoman.freebsd.org> <434E7A91.8060800@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 08:17 -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Tim Kientzle wrote: > > Log: > > 1) Use GNU libtool to build shared libraries on non-FreeBSD > > systems (or on FreeBSD systems when using ports). > > 2) Overhaul the versioning logic. .... > > Does anyone on this list think they understand libtool? > > I've been talking to someone using Debian who is trying > to figure out why Debian produces a libarchive.so.1.2.36 > and FreeBSD produces a libarchive.so.3 from the exact > same build system. > > The discussion of version numbering in "info libtool" > is quite baffling. The problem lies in the fact that somewhere somehow the libtool people apparently thought it would be funny to make the way the library version numbering works FreeBSD different from the way they do it on Linux. (At least that's my understanding of the matter). You may want to check the freebsd-gnome@ list and do a search for ltverhack. It is my understanding that it is the intention to have this bogon fixed in ports post 6.0. -- Pascal Hofstee <caelian@gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1129219802.912.2.camel>