From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 29 01:58:12 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B377616A67E for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:58:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) Received: from pollux.dfwlp.com (rrcs-64-183-212-244.sw.biz.rr.com [64.183.212.244]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8492E13C483 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:58:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) Received: from athena.dfwlp.com (athena.dfwlp.com [192.168.125.83]) (authenticated bits=0) by pollux.dfwlp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7T1w9Sh025237 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:58:09 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) From: Jonathan Horne To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:58:08 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200708282231.l7SMVPKe021780@asus.tddhome> <20070828223555.GC32597@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070828223555.GC32597@hub.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708282058.09245.freebsd@dfwlp.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.6 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on pollux.dfwlp.com 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: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:58:12 -0000 On Tuesday 28 August 2007 17:35:55 Kris Kennaway wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" it would be interesting to know what kinds of apps break from doing this... i link 6 things to get my netbackup agent working, and so far everything works like clockwork. i remember back in tredhat fedora, i learned this behavior because i want to remember, that tons of libs were always linked by default. once i moved to freebsd, i really didnt think anything of it, because i was always told that these types of things were backwards compatible, and they were symlinked specifically because of this (ie, it was intended by the distro provider, becuase some app they included was asking for an older revision of a lib). ive not looked at a linux in about 2 years, but i want to say it was so common as to be "normal" to see linked libs. anyway... /ramble. cheers, -- Jonathan Horne http://dfwlpiki.dfwlp.org freebsd@dfwlp.com