Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:56:05 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> Cc: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 32+ signals and library versions Message-ID: <199909091656.KAA03831@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <37D7DE68.5441D879@scc.nl> References: <199909091436.SAA04752@arc.hq.cti.ru> <37D7DE68.5441D879@scc.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I strongly disagree. Spitting "unresolved references" is *not* a way to > > > tell the user that he doesn't have the right libraries. > > > > I strongly disagree. This is much better than version bump. After all, > > we can add suggestion to upgrade libraries to the "unresolved references" > > message. For what it's worth, I agree with Marcel. Version bumps should be discouraged, but not totally avoided. Carrying around old libraries with older version numbers is *hardly* a burden for the users, and those folks who are running old versions of FreeBSD will not be effected at all since they will continue to keep the old libraries around. I say a version bump is the better solution, since the linker will 'Do The Right Thing'. Yes, we shouldn't version bump every time someone has a whim, ending up with 10 version bumps/week, but neither should we avoid them altogether and cause the Linux syndrome of programs refusing to work because they have the *wrong* version of glibc2.3 (or whatever).... Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909091656.KAA03831>