Date: 13 Feb 2001 02:42:15 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, John Indra <john@office.naver.co.id>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...) Message-ID: <xzplmrbmk94.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Warner Losh's message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:31:53 -0700" References: <200102130120.f1D1KpU56194@mobile.wemm.org> <200102130131.f1D1VrW33790@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> writes: > I've had problems in the past going backwards on major versions of > shared libaries. The major problem is that if I have binaries that > refer to libc.so.503, then when the major number is reverted back to > 5, it is a nop because ld will use libc.so.503 for new binaries. When we back down to 5, we add magic to the Makefiles to move libc.so.5?? to /usr/lib/compat - that way they're only used when needed at runtime, not for linking new programs. > What's wrong with shipping with say libc.so.505 in 5.0 and then say > libc.so.645 in 6.0? Umm, I dunno, except that it'll look weird, but that's just a matter of taste. Of course, what we really need is "mandatory minor numbers", i.e. minor numbers that are treated as "I need this version", not as "I need this version or newer"... *ducks* *runs* DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzplmrbmk94.fsf>