Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:44:09 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: Studded@san.rr.com Cc: garbanzo@hooked.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ELF transition for ports Message-ID: <199809160044.RAA02262@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <35FEFC89.DB12AD0E@san.rr.com> (message from Studded on Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:47:21 -0700)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Listen guys, ELF is here to stay in the current form and I'm not going to ask the ELF team to change it any more to make our lives easier. (In fact, you are making our lives harder by bringing up the same subject over and over again. :<) * From: Studded <Studded@san.rr.com> * Alex wrote: * > That seems _really_ bogus. Pray tell, what's wrong with using two version * > numbers and ELF libs? Because ELF does not have two version numbers. Ask binutils. * It seems to me that renumbering the libraries is a recipe for disaster. No. It's the linking library versions with software release numbers is the recipe for disaster. We've had a lot of experiences with this. ELF just makes it a little more visible because minor numbers don't exist anymore, but it's still the essentially same problem. Look at the handbook and CVS log of shared library numbering policy, and you'll see that now's not the time to bring up the subject again. * I much prefer a smarter ldconfig, and a better tagging system that * doesn't involve changing the numbering of the libraries from a source * outside the project. That has nothing to do with ELF. Shared library versioning is often fundamentally flawed coming out of the developer, it's not our fault that we have to fix it. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809160044.RAA02262>