Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:30:41 -0800 From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Alexander Nedotsukov <bland@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: shared library pain with 6.0-RELEASE : .so.600 ?? Message-ID: <20051109013041.GA33989@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <43700730.4040408@FreeBSD.org> References: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com> <43700730.4040408@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:02:24AM +0900, Alexander Nedotsukov wrote: > 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. I know, but unless the package system comes up with some maintainable way to track .so version numbers and can determine if/when to add symblic links... having to hack around this stuff is silly. Having to rebuild every package is likewise silly. > 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. So clarify for me -- if I do the gnome-upgrade.sh upgrade to 2.12, this will recompile every package that needs these libraries? Or give me more new library changes that will need yet more symbolic links? > 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. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Joe Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051109013041.GA33989>