From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 27 13:50:22 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA10802 for current-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:50:22 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA10789; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:50:13 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id OAA03571; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:54:19 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:54:19 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199503272154.OAA03571@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp "Re: shared library versioning" (Mar 27, 1:43pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Poul-Henning Kamp , jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Subject: Re: shared library versioning Cc: davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > 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