Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:56:45 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Alexander N. Kabaev" <ak03@gte.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Message-ID: <200102131656.f1DGukE12832@billy-club.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:41:07 EST." <XFMail.20010213114107.ak03@gte.com> References: <XFMail.20010213114107.ak03@gte.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <XFMail.20010213114107.ak03@gte.com> "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.<major>.<minor> naming convention for libc? Jumping between versions : (5xx -> 5) just does not seem right. I just got mail telling me that's what OpenBSD does for these things. ELF libraries do not have minor numbers. The major number in this case would be 5.1, but that's OK. It still looks "pretty" enough to ship with 5.0 since 5.0 is going to have a FreeBSD_version number greater than 500000. We're already up to 500013 (or likely higher since the current system I'm typing on is very old). There's no reason we couldn't ship with 5.4 and just leave it at that. Of course there's also no reason, besides OBrien's yell of HACK (which it isn't), of shipping with libc.so.12 either. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102131656.f1DGukE12832>