From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 00:36:47 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C071916A41F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:36:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4A243D48 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:36:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jA80RoQs026617 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:27:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id jA80RntN011539 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:27:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id jA80RnnV011537 for freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:27:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:27:49 -0800 From: Joe Rhett To: FreeBSD ports list Message-ID: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com> Mail-Followup-To: FreeBSD ports list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Subject: shared library pain with 6.0-RELEASE : .so.600 ?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:36:47 -0000 Out of curiosity, why does 6.0-RELEASE ship with packages that install shared libraries with .so.600 version numbers? It appears that installing nearly any port requires that all these libraries get rebuild and reinstalled, followed by manually creating symlinks to the .so.600 versions that everything is linked against. 1. Shouldn't library ports allow multiple versions to be installed, rather than forcing a deinstall? libIDL is the most common dependancy culprit, and with 5.x we ended up with 3 different symbolic links to make everything happy. (unmaintainable, manually hacked into place symbolic links which work around problems in the packages database) 2. Why did 6.0-RELEASE (and I think other releases in the past too?) name the shared libraries with a release-tag version? Is there some logic to this that escapes me? It only strikes me as painful for all the obvious reasons. -- Joe Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation