From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 10 07:49:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDB4106568B for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:49:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smohideen@mx2.labs.rootshell.ws) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D808FC13 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:49:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smohideen@mx2.labs.rootshell.ws) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d27so197699tid.3 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.49.2 with SMTP id w2mr1062984tiw.48.1223624992023; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([59.180.159.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 2sm2191166tif.0.2008.10.10.00.49.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:55:57 +0530 From: Shakul M Hameed To: Jeremy Chadwick Message-ID: <20081010132556.GC1917@freebsdbox> References: <48EE6046.8020906@mykitchentable.net> <20081010122613.GA1864@freebsdbox> <20081010071255.GA25451@icarus.home.lan> <20081010131021.GB1917@freebsdbox> <20081010074046.GA25922@icarus.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081010074046.GA25922@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Drew Tomlinson , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How To Get libm.so.4? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:49:54 -0000 Thanks, Jeremy. For letting me know the dis-advantages softlinking in long run. On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:40:46AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:40:22PM +0530, Shakul M Hameed wrote: > > I think its not a very bad idea, unless your app is dependent on a routine which is deprecated and > > not avaiable in the latest version of library. For testing purpose this should be ok. > > I disagree. It _is_ a bad idea. > > There is absolutely *no* guarantee that symbols will be identical > between two revisions of a shared library, especially across a > major revision. I'm not talking about missing symbols detected during > run-time either; I'm talking about internal changes that could affect > the operation of a program which relies on certain behaviour of > functions in that library, which has changed in a newer version (yet > kept the same function/calling semantics). > > And let's not forget about shared libraries that are linked to other > shared libraries, resulting in a dependency tree of madness, where > you'll suddenly find yourself making symlinks all over the place. (You > should use libmap.conf for this purpose anyway). > > So like I said -- it IS a bad idea. Please do not do it. > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |