From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 9 01:37:19 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C1816A421; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 01:37:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8119843D49; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 01:37:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jA91UgQs056481; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:30:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id jA91UfeV003209; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:30:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id jA91UfB3003207; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:30:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:30:41 -0800 From: Joe Rhett To: Alexander Nedotsukov Message-ID: <20051109013041.GA33989@svcolo.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Nedotsukov , FreeBSD ports list References: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com> <43700730.4040408@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43700730.4040408@FreeBSD.org> Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: FreeBSD ports list Subject: Re: shared library pain with 6.0-RELEASE : .so.600 ?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:37:19 -0000 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