Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:14:22 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h Message-ID: <423B288E.3090901@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <423B2778.2070206@samsco.org> References: <20050317.233645.74714466.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050318064521.GA42508@VARK.MIT.EDU> <423A86D9.5030504@portaone.com> <20050318.005008.71126625.imp@bsdimp.com> <423A8B51.3010609@portaone.com> <423A8DC5.5010006@samsco.org> <20050318190828.GC30813@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <423B2778.2070206@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote: > Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On Fri, 2005-Mar-18 01:13:57 -0700, Scott Long wrote: >> >>> No, I think that what he's worried about is that you have port foo that >>> generates a library called libfoo.so.1, and that library is linked >>> against libm.so.2. You then have port bar that generates a binary >>> linked against libfoo.so.1 and libm.so.2. Now lets say that libm.so.2 >>> gets bumped to libm.so.3, and you also rebuild port bar. Now bar is >>> linked to libfoo.so.1 and libm.so.3, but libfoo.so.1 is still linked >>> against libm.so.2; >> >> >> >> Is it worthwhile checking (and warning) about this condition? Possible >> options include: >> 1) ld-elf.so learning that a .so is make up of a name and a version >> number >> and whinging if an executable attempts to load two shared libraries >> with >> the same name and different versions. > > > This would definitely be good to have for diagnostic purposes, whether > the mythical library versioning happens or not. ^^^^^^^ symbol > >> 2) ld(1) whinging (and failing) if the shared libraries on the command >> line would result in the final executable being linked against two >> different versions of a shared library. > > > As you point out below, this does nothing for dlopen(), and I don't > think that it'll provide enough useful information for end users. > >> 3) portupgrade (or even port dependency checking) doing an 'ldd' on each >> dependency and either complaining or rebuilding any where the >> dependency >> predates a library bump. (Doing this properly probably means building >> the port then discovering that it now needs multiple .so versions and >> having to rebuild it after cleaning up the offending dependency). > > > Yes, this would be interesting to have also. > > Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423B288E.3090901>