From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 02:02:32 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 C4A0116A41F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:02:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp2.jp.viruscheck.net (smtp2.jp.viruscheck.net [154.33.69.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3753E43D45 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:02:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from scan1.jp.viruscheck.net ([154.33.69.36] helo=mail2.jp.viruscheck.net) by smtp2.jp.viruscheck.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1EZIof-0001mG-00 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:02:29 +0900 Received: from [218.44.36.80] (helo=noc.orchid.orchidtechnology.com) by mail2.jp.viruscheck.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #3) id 1EZIof-0001ep-00 for freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:02:29 +0900 Received: from [89.60.10.11] (horse.orchid.orchidtechnology.com [89.60.10.11]) by noc.orchid.orchidtechnology.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jA822O5G030035 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:02:25 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <43700730.4040408@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:02:24 +0900 From: Alexander Nedotsukov User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD ports list References: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: 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 02:02:32 -0000 Joe, First. .600 have nothing in common with FreeBSD release-tag. Those numbers belong to GNOME/GTK libraries release cycle. Second. Basically multiple library versions co-existence is not so rosy as you probably think. Even if you solve header files conflicts there are a lot of software which alloc/dealloc various kind of resources across modules, libraries which extensively use static data etc. etc. etc. This will lead to very weird run-time behavior. But on the good note I'd happy to tell that those frequent shared library bumps was due bug in GNU autohell tools used by GNOME/GTK software authors. This problem addressed in GNOME 2.12 FreeBSD port which just hit the repository. So this is a last time you required to step through massive rebuild w/o a good reason for that. All the best, Alexander. Joe Rhett wrote: > 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. > >