Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:23:13 +0100 From: "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with .so numbering on FreeBSD in contrast to Linux Message-ID: <102353174119913@212.46.126.165> In-Reply-To: <20090225063155.GB31601@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20090225063155.GB31601@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Peter Jeremy wrote: > It's also virtually impossible to use libtool on Solaris. I've come > to the conclusion that libtool was "designed" (using the word very > loosely) to impede portability as much as possible. I feel so botchy when probing and poking in configure.ac or Makefile.am. But autotools constitutes a common interface and one should not underestimate its knowledge about systems. I found out about FreeBSD .so numbering meanwhile that libtool is right to use a single number because the dynamic linker insists in exact number matching anyway. I.e. libburn.so.4.27 does not work for a program that was linked against .so.4.25. Still unanswered is the question why the semantics of libtool's .so numbering differ boldly between Linux and FreeBSD. Problem seems to be that with a single version number one cannot express the difference between compatible and incompatible ABI versions. Obviously it was more important to allow several versions of the same compatible ABI, than to allow the applications to make use of that compatibility. For my own projects i would make the contrary decision for now. But i still have doubts. Ain't there any sysadmin here who can explain the best practice of managing dynamic libraries on FreeBSD ? Have a nice day :) Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?102353174119913>