From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Feb 13 8:45:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D9E37B491 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA96148; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:45:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: "Alexander N. Kabaev" Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 13 Feb 2001 17:45:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Alexander N. Kabaev"'s message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:41:07 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Alexander N. Kabaev" writes: > I know this will sound silly, but if numbers in shared libraries file names > mean nothing to the loader, why can't we just go back to using > lib.so.. naming convention for libc? Jumping between versions > (5xx -> 5) just does not seem right. Because the loader would ignore the minor number - plus, the semantics we want are not those that minor library version numbers used to have. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message