Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:09:44 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h Message-ID: <423B2778.2070206@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050318190828.GC30813@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20050317.233645.74714466.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050318064521.GA42508@VARK.MIT.EDU> <423A86D9.5030504@portaone.com> <20050318.005008.71126625.imp@bsdimp.com> <423A8B51.3010609@portaone.com> <423A8DC5.5010006@samsco.org> <20050318190828.GC30813@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Fri, 2005-Mar-18 01:13:57 -0700, Scott Long wrote: > >>No, I think that what he's worried about is that you have port foo that >>generates a library called libfoo.so.1, and that library is linked >>against libm.so.2. You then have port bar that generates a binary >>linked against libfoo.so.1 and libm.so.2. Now lets say that libm.so.2 >>gets bumped to libm.so.3, and you also rebuild port bar. Now bar is >>linked to libfoo.so.1 and libm.so.3, but libfoo.so.1 is still linked >>against libm.so.2; > > > Is it worthwhile checking (and warning) about this condition? Possible > options include: > 1) ld-elf.so learning that a .so is make up of a name and a version number > and whinging if an executable attempts to load two shared libraries with > the same name and different versions. This would definitely be good to have for diagnostic purposes, whether the mythical library versioning happens or not. > 2) ld(1) whinging (and failing) if the shared libraries on the command > line would result in the final executable being linked against two > different versions of a shared library. As you point out below, this does nothing for dlopen(), and I don't think that it'll provide enough useful information for end users. > 3) portupgrade (or even port dependency checking) doing an 'ldd' on each > dependency and either complaining or rebuilding any where the dependency > predates a library bump. (Doing this properly probably means building > the port then discovering that it now needs multiple .so versions and > having to rebuild it after cleaning up the offending dependency). Yes, this would be interesting to have also. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423B2778.2070206>