From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Aug 27 08:41:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA26407 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from red5.cac.washington.edu (red5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.55.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA26365; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:41:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dittrich@cac.washington.edu) Received: from localhost (dittrich@localhost) by red5.cac.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with SMTP id IAA01508; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:40:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Dittrich To: Satoshi Asami cc: mike@smith.net.au, billf@chc-chimes.com, ports@openbsd.org, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shared libraries in packages In-Reply-To: <199808270748.AAA11575@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * We change the major and minor versions in accordance with a.out naming > * policy, not simply to match the version number of the particular > * package (which normally doesn't). > > Yes. See the handbook's "policy" section for more detail. Let me remind you that I use OpenBSD and was getting ports from the openbsd.com web page. Are you talking about a FreeBSD policy? I don't recall seeing it on the page I was using, although I could be mistaken. > * In this case, it means that the library has undergone one non-backwards > * -compatible change (1.x to 2.1) and one backwards-compatible change > * (2.1 to 2.2). > > Two. The first 2.X version is 2.0. :) > > Actually, I believe we bumped all libraries to 2.0 when we released > FreeBSD 2.0R, which was based on a different codebase from 1.*. This seems to entirely defeat the purpose of shared libraries and shared ports. If the OpenBSD community does not use this same scheme (which I don't think is really wise, considering it breaks all versioning consistant with the original source authors' naming conventions. (If they upgrade libpcap today to 0.5, does that mean you have to then go to 2.3? Why not use a convention like 0.4-2.3 or 0.4.2.3 to stay closer to the original?) Regardless, I think this means that you should not put *any* non-static binaries on the OpenBSD site (that are created on FreeBSD systems) or at least provide source for all ported products (as I can't recompile libpcap until I find the source somewhere else besides the OpenBSD site - I'll start sending email to the people who created the ports to build my own.) Thanks for all your input on this. I hope this improves the ports service, which is great! -- Dave Dittrich Client Services dittrich@cac.washington.edu Computing & Communications University of Washington Dave Dittrich / dittrich@cac.washington.edu [PGP Key] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message