Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:44:47 +0800 (WST) From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-user@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/scripts bin-install.sh Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960108162944.496A-100000@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: <22497.821086433@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Speaking of these, I was a bit disturbed when I saw the compat20.tgz file
> > - it had a lot of libXXX.so.2.0 libs in there, and the install script
> > seemed to be splatting all those over the top of the /usr/lib directory..
> > For example, it was splatting a 2.0 libutil.so.2.0 over the top of a 2.1
> > /usr/lib/libutil.so.2.0
>
> Yep!
>
> I talked about this in the early days of 2.1, when others noticed that
> the compat* dists seemed a little haphazardly put together and
> exhibited the side-effects in question. All I can say in my own
> defence is that I never really had time to do the compat libs at all,
> and I warned people several times that if somebody didn't volunteer to
> take that piece and make sure it was correct, I was just going to end
> up having to throw something together at the last minute.
>
> And I did ask in May.. :-)
>
> To: current@freefall.cdrom.com
> Subject: I still need a compat20 distribution!
> Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 20:42:19 -0700
> Message-ID: <21940.801632539@freefall.cdrom.com>
> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard"
> Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
> Precedence: bulk
>
> It can be a single gzip'd tarball for all I care, but I really need
> somebody to make a `compat20dist' that extracts relative to /.
>
> I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time to go chasing down all the
> 2.0 compatability bits right now, so if you want to see support for
> 2.0 binaries "out of the box" in 2.0.5, please consider stepping
^^^^^
> forward and making this distribution for me!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jordan
Heh. Oh well, I can pleady "Not Guilty!" - I was only just starting to
sniff around back then.
My research suggests that we need the following libs from 2.0-RELEASE in
a compat20.tgz dist:
libforms.so.2.0
libncurses.so.2.0
libdialog.so.2.0
libg++.so.2.0
libreadline.so.2.0
That's it!
All these libraries jumped major revision to libblah.so.3.x in 2.0.5.
We need no new libraries from 2.0.5, as no new major revision changes
were made.
When we start thinking about a 2.2 release, we will need the 2.1-REL (or
2.1.1-REL) libgcc.so.261.0, because that's apparently no longer being
built shared on 2.2-CURRENT.
In case anybody was wondering, 2.1-REL has libtermlib.so.2.1 - we do
*NOT* need libtermlib.so.2.0 unless we really screwed something up. The
minor revision means that functionality was added, not changed.
Incidently, I dont think ld.so would ever pull in termlib.so.2.0 if 2.1
was present, because ld.so.cache will list "termlib.so.2 -> termlib.so.2.1"
That huge big list of 2.0 libraries that's spamming the latest 2.1
version (remember the telnet undefined symbol problem?) needs to go on a
big diet. :-)
-Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960108162944.496A-100000>