From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 20 04:35:27 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id EAA19842 for current-outgoing; Mon, 20 Feb 1995 04:35:27 -0800 Received: from amcell2.caisr.cwru.edu (amcell2.CAISR.CWRU.Edu [129.22.24.2]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA19833 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 1995 04:35:25 -0800 Received: (from ljo@localhost) by amcell2.caisr.cwru.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) id HAA01665; Mon, 20 Feb 1995 07:33:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 07:33:36 -0500 From: L Jonas Olsson Message-Id: <199502201233.HAA01665@amcell2.caisr.cwru.edu> To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net CC: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, current@freefall.cdrom.com In-reply-to: <199502200534.WAA01333@trout.sri.MT.net> (message from Nate Williams on Sun, 19 Feb 1995 22:34:04 -0700) Subject: Re: libcompat and shlib conflict Reply-to: ljo@po.CWRU.Edu Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Isn't the idea not to have a shared libcompat? This library is supposed to disappear (at least some functions in it) and we don't want binaries to depend on having these functions in new releases. This also gives an extra incentive to fix programs that use it as their binaries will be larger :) Jonas