Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:40:46 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> To: Shakul M Hameed <smohideen@mx2.labs.rootshell.ws> Cc: Drew Tomlinson <drew@mykitchentable.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How To Get libm.so.4? Message-ID: <20081010074046.GA25922@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20081010131021.GB1917@freebsdbox> References: <48EE6046.8020906@mykitchentable.net> <20081010122613.GA1864@freebsdbox> <20081010071255.GA25451@icarus.home.lan> <20081010131021.GB1917@freebsdbox>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:40:22PM +0530, Shakul M Hameed wrote: > I think its not a very bad idea, unless your app is dependent on a routine which is deprecated and > not avaiable in the latest version of library. For testing purpose this should be ok. I disagree. It _is_ a bad idea. There is absolutely *no* guarantee that symbols will be identical between two revisions of a shared library, especially across a major revision. I'm not talking about missing symbols detected during run-time either; I'm talking about internal changes that could affect the operation of a program which relies on certain behaviour of functions in that library, which has changed in a newer version (yet kept the same function/calling semantics). And let's not forget about shared libraries that are linked to other shared libraries, resulting in a dependency tree of madness, where you'll suddenly find yourself making symlinks all over the place. (You should use libmap.conf for this purpose anyway). So like I said -- it IS a bad idea. Please do not do it. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081010074046.GA25922>