Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:54:19 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com>, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: shared library versioning Message-ID: <199503272154.OAA03571@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> "Re: shared library versioning" (Mar 27, 1:43pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I didn't see a bump, but as a result of this change, it should be. > > > > So instead of said binaries failing catastrophically on a link > > error, they just fail to find the library in question and fail > > catastrophically on a missing library? > > > > I somehow fail to see the point. > > So do I. > This will make >ALL< 2.1 binaries fail on a 2.0 system, leaving the > version number as it was would only have a few 2.1 binaries (as of yet > nonexistent ones) fail on a 2.0 system. And rightly so. If we want to use shlibs, you need to pay the price of compatability. Having *most* of the binaries work is not acceptable when all the binaries will work is simple and only wastes space. If folks want to run 2.1 binaries on their 2.1 machines, then they need the 2.1 libraries as well. They go hand in hand. (Assuming the ld changes don't bite them). If they want, they can delete the 2.0 libraries as so far all of them are un-necessary and can be replaced by the 2.1 versions. You can't have it both ways. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503272154.OAA03571>