From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 31 23:50:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CEB16A420 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:50:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E60843D6E for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:50:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACF346BD8; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:50:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:52:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Sean McNeil In-Reply-To: <1138476952.86610.1.camel@triton.mcneil.com> Message-ID: <20060131235035.B95776@fledge.watson.org> References: <1138476952.86610.1.camel@triton.mcneil.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC of bump in libcom_err.so another mistake? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:50:57 -0000 On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Sean McNeil wrote: > I was wondering if this was on purpose. Seems like there is no good reason > that it was done on -STABLE and it has really messed up everything here for > me. > > libcom_err.so.2 bumped to libcom_err.so.3. It was on purpose, but not necessarily for a good reason. Could you be more specific about "really messed up everything here for me", which sounds a lot to me like "and all hell broken loose"? I assume there's some sort of library and application versioning problem, but some details would be helpful. In principle, other than potentially requiring compat libs to run old binaries even though that may not strictly have been necessary, it seems likely that a binary depending on the old libcom_err depends also on an old libc. On the other hand, I consider library version number interactions to be mysterious, and likely have missed the point. :-) Robert N M Watson