From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 1 00:03:24 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 8A55D16A420; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:03:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from mail.mcneil.com (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC38D43D46; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:03:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCD4F230B; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.mcneil.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (triton.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24359-07; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.0.10] (mobile.mcneil.com [10.1.0.10]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7ACDF2100; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:03:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20060131235035.B95776@fledge.watson.org> References: <1138476952.86610.1.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <20060131235035.B95776@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7B0411F5-FCBC-40BC-94CA-2B8AA13FA783@mcneil.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sean McNeil Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:03:21 -0800 To: Robert Watson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mcneil.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:16:39 +0000 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: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:03:24 -0000 On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Robert Watson wrote: > > 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. I had several big packages that depended on kerberos and they all broke because: 1) libcom_err.so.2.1 was moved to /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg/ 2) The symlink libcom_err.so.2 was removed and nothing was placed in compat. I finally got smart and just added an entry to libmap.conf and so I'm not "really messed up...". That was not accurate in the first place :) > 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. :-) The point I am making is that this is in the -STABLE tree, not the - CURRENT tree. There is no bump of libc and I don't see any reason for the libcom_err.so revision bump in -STABLE. IMHO, it didn't make sense. Cheers, Sean