From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 28 22:35:55 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id 4AA7C16A419; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:35:55 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway To: "Thomas D. Dean" Message-ID: <20070828223555.GC32597@hub.freebsd.org> References: <200708282052.l7SKqpIU021533@asus.tddhome> <20070828220355.GA32597@hub.freebsd.org> <200708282231.l7SMVPKe021780@asus.tddhome> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708282231.l7SMVPKe021780@asus.tddhome> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: kris@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.11 binary compatibility (libm.so.2, etc) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:35:55 -0000 On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:31:25PM -0700, Thomas D. Dean wrote: > It provides a temporary solution in some cases, when you need to get > going. It is not a long term solution. It's bogus because a) the real solution exists and is trivial (install the relevant compat port), and b) your advice *will* break applications. Shared library revision numbers are bumped for a good reason, of course, namely because there are changes made that break backwards compatibility. Kris