Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:43:22 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: libpthread shared library version number Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611020042290.10499@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <45494692.5090200@FreeBSD.org> References: <454936CA.6060308@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611011935540.9245@sea.ntplx.net> <45494692.5090200@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> >>> Guys, >>> >>> I have noticed that libpthread shared library version number in 6-STABLE >>> and 7-CURRENT is the same (.2), which causes all threaded application >>> compiled for 6-STABLE to segfault when executed on 7-CURRENT system, >>> unless libpthread.so.2 is replaced with with its 6-STABLE version which >>> in turn will create problems with threaded apps compiled for 7-CURRENT. >>> IMHO we should increase version number in 7-CURRENT, so that it is in the >>> line of what we have for other system libraries. >> >> It should be done as part of a larger set of library version bumps. >> All libraries should be bumped. I believe kan and kensmith were >> suppose to be looking at that. We wanted to enable symble versioning >> by default, so all libraries would need to be bumped. > > Well, as I said the rest of the libs have already been bumped between 6.x and > 7.x, I don't know if libpthread is exception. Perhaps somebody just missed it > out? When did this happen? Did I miss it? I know we bumped libc. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0611020042290.10499>