Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:08:10 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No libc shared lib number bump ? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091603050.17192@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20071109220009.2334254d@deskjail> References: <200710180835.18929.thierry@herbelot.com> <47170A83.6050607@FreeBSD.org> <20071018091950.GB1546@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710181038360.22190@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109141155.0ae922a1@deskjail> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711090952001.16340@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109164301.258532a8@deskjail> <4734AE21.3020901@elischer.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091405120.17192@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109220009.2334254d@deskjail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:05:48 -0500 (EST)): > >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > >>> I'm pretty sure there will be future version bumps despite the assurances of >>> the "symbol versioning cabal" that there won't be. >>> So I think it should be left at 7 to allow that to happen in the future. > > I have the "never say never" mentality, so I can understand your > opinion. > >> Well, there shouldn't be. But even if there is, there is 0.0, 0.1, >> etc. > > I thought such minor versions are ... "bad" ... at least in our ports > we put a lot of effort to get rid of them back in the times when we > switched from a.out to elf. There is not such problem with how you name ELF libraries. It could be non-numeric as well and nothing would care, e.g, libc.so.foo.bar. Well, except for applications or tools that make assumptions about our library naming. I can't really see that being a problem since we always use links from libfoo.so to libfoo.so.version-string. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091603050.17192>