From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 27 13:53:12 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA10887 for current-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:53:12 -0800 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA10880; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:52:57 -0800 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA00192; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:52:49 -0800 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199503272152.NAA00192@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: shared library versioning To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:52:48 -0800 (PST) Cc: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199503272154.OAA03571@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Mar 27, 95 02:54:19 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1526 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. No I can't. But until somebody actually uses that particular symbol for something, then I don't really want to see 2.1 being >that< incompatible. Alternatively we shoule decide that this is the way it will be, and bump the number at any and all release hereafter. -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'