From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 9 21:08:37 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B29716A418 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:08:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3AA13C4B2 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:08:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id lA9L8Acx023921; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:08:10 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:08:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:08:10 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Alexander Leidinger In-Reply-To: <20071109220009.2334254d@deskjail> Message-ID: References: <200710180835.18929.thierry@herbelot.com> <47170A83.6050607@FreeBSD.org> <20071018091950.GB1546@nagual.pp.ru> <20071109141155.0ae922a1@deskjail> <20071109164301.258532a8@deskjail> <4734AE21.3020901@elischer.org> <20071109220009.2334254d@deskjail> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Julian Elischer , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No libc shared lib number bump ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:08:37 -0000 On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Daniel Eischen (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:05:48 -0500 (EST)): > >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > >>> I'm pretty sure there will be future version bumps despite the assurances of >>> the "symbol versioning cabal" that there won't be. >>> So I think it should be left at 7 to allow that to happen in the future. > > I have the "never say never" mentality, so I can understand your > opinion. > >> Well, there shouldn't be. But even if there is, there is 0.0, 0.1, >> etc. > > I thought such minor versions are ... "bad" ... at least in our ports > we put a lot of effort to get rid of them back in the times when we > switched from a.out to elf. There is not such problem with how you name ELF libraries. It could be non-numeric as well and nothing would care, e.g, libc.so.foo.bar. Well, except for applications or tools that make assumptions about our library naming. I can't really see that being a problem since we always use links from libfoo.so to libfoo.so.version-string. -- DE