Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 02:56:29 +0000 From: Paulo Menezes <pm@dee.uc.pt> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, Paulo Menezes <paulo@isr.uc.pt>, Paulo Menezes <paulo@thor.dee.uc.pt>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Upgrade of Mesa Message-ID: <32F00DDD.5741@dee.uc.pt> References: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.970129192613.4162B-100000@gilligan.eng.umd.edu> <32F00483.5860@dee.uc.pt>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
------------59A533CE5CB02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Satoshi Asami wrote: > > * I am once again porting the new version of Mesa to FreeBSD. > * Now I have a question, in the previous version I have used for version > * numbers of the shared libraries the pre-previous + 1 rule. > > There is a reason behind the library versions increasing, and why they > can never decrease between releases. Please see the handbook (28.3 or > something). > > * But I think it makes little sense in using something in FreeBSD like > * ....so.14.0 where the other systems use .so.2.1 for the same version. > > It's not like we can share libraries and binaries with other systems > anyway. :) Just because other systems are being sloppy with shared > library numbering doesn't mean we should do the same. > Sure, but if you try to install Mesa just by downloading it and typing "make freebsd" you'll get 2.1 numbers in the libraries. Many people would get confused if it conflicts with a previous "ported" installation. And why should't we follow the numbers that developers assign? > * What do you recomend, using the release number for these or ignore it and > * add a symlink like "ln -s ***.so.2.1 ***.so.14.0"? > > That won't do any good. :( > > Satoshi At least it would work for both cases, and in a next version we would remove them with the install script :) Paulo ------------59A533CE5CB02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <HTML><BODY> <DT>Satoshi Asami wrote:<BR> > <BR> > * I am once again porting the new version of Mesa to FreeBSD.<BR> > * Now I have a question, in the previous version I have used for version<BR> > * numbers of the shared libraries the pre-previous + 1 rule.<BR> > <BR> > There is a reason behind the library versions increasing, and why they<BR> > can never decrease between releases. Please see the handbook (28.3 or<BR> > something).<BR> > <BR> > * But I think it makes little sense in using something in FreeBSD like<BR> > * ....so.14.0 where the other systems use .so.2.1 for the same version.<BR> > <BR> > It's not like we can share libraries and binaries with other systems<BR> > anyway. :) Just because other systems are being sloppy with shared<BR> > library numbering doesn't mean we should do the same.<BR> > </DT> <DT>Sure, but if you try to install Mesa just by downloading it and typing</DT> <DT>"make freebsd" you'll get 2.1 numbers in the libraries.</DT> <DT>Many people would get confused if it conflicts with a previous "ported" installation. And why should't we follow the numbers that developers assign?</DT> <DT><BR> > * What do you recomend, using the release number for these or ignore it and<BR> > * add a symlink like "ln -s ***.so.2.1 ***.so.14.0"?<BR> > <BR> > That won't do any good. :(<BR> > </DT> <DT>> Satoshi<BR> At least it would work for both cases, and in a next version we would remove them with the install script :)</DT> <DT> </DT> <DT>Paulo</DT> <DT><BR> </DT> </BODY> </HTML> ------------59A533CE5CB02--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32F00DDD.5741>