Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:05:25 -0400 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: "Ziller, James" <James.Ziller@qg.com> Cc: "'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dependency hell Message-ID: <83D6CC19-9234-11D8-9D0B-003065ABFD92@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <025596A38A894B45AFE62346A6BF474609CBACD1@waexch1.qgraph.com> References: <025596A38A894B45AFE62346A6BF474609CBACD1@waexch1.qgraph.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Ziller, James wrote:
> So then is there a way that the ports/package system can automatically
> handle replacing libfoo.so.3 with libfoo.so.4, so that packages
> compiled to
> use libfoo.so.3 can use libfoo.so.4 instead (assuming the new version
> is
> backward compatable)?
If the new version of the library is backwards-compatible, it ought to
be installed as libfoo.so.3 (not .4), and yes, the ports system will
handle such upgrades in place just fine.
In particular, OpenSSL (aka libssl.so.n) is an example of a library
that has had many bugfiles and updates without changing version numbers
often. You don't need to recompile everything that depends on libssl
when you update libssl.
People (should) only bump shared library numbers when the library's
interface changes in an incompatible fashion. When that happens, it's
a bad idea to try to fake the system out (say by symlinking libfoo.so.3
to .4): programs tend to crash when you try, or do worse things such as
corrupt data or mishandle authentication and thus open up a security
hole.
> Or can the port link against say libfoo.so (which
> should be a symlink to the version of the library that's installed)?
libfoo.so is normally a symlink to the latest version of a particular
shared library. A port that genuinely doesn't care which version of
libfoo you have doesn't need to depend on a particular version #, and
you'd see a line in the Makefile like:
LIB_DEPENDS= foo:${PORTSDIR}/misc/foo
...but most ports end up with more specific dependencies (ie, foo.3).
Maintaining backwards compatibility is not a high priority of the ports
system and the result is that people end up recompiling a lot of stuff,
but it's not easy to provide better solutions to this problem.
--
-Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?83D6CC19-9234-11D8-9D0B-003065ABFD92>