Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:14:28 +0200 From: Panagiotis Astithas <past@ebs.gr> To: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC of bump in libcom_err.so another mistake? Message-ID: <43E09814.8080707@ebs.gr> In-Reply-To: <7B0411F5-FCBC-40BC-94CA-2B8AA13FA783@mcneil.com> References: <1138476952.86610.1.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <20060131235035.B95776@fledge.watson.org> <7B0411F5-FCBC-40BC-94CA-2B8AA13FA783@mcneil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sean McNeil wrote: > > 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. Do you, by any chance, have security/heimdal installed? If so, this seems like a portupgrade job. Cheers, Panagiotis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43E09814.8080707>