Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:50:15 -0600 (MDT) From: gnat@frii.com To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-mozilla@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Libraries Message-ID: <199804141450.IAA26379@prometheus.frii.com> In-Reply-To: <199804140710.AAA02051@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <199804131525.JAA21474@prometheus.frii.com> <199804140710.AAA02051@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi Asami writes: > The library names with version numbers are those that have proven in > the past to upgrade without preserving backwards compatibility. I figured that's what it was. > Usually that is solved by bumping the major shlib number, but we can't > do that for libraries that are used by dozens of other ports. Because > the way FreeBSD shared libraries work, it is not possible to smoothly > transition from one version to another without changing the "base" > name (as you see in libtiff or libtcl). Urk. What algorithm, then, should autoconf use to (a) find the j. random name of the library, (b) that library's include files, and (c) whether the library+include files are compatible with how it works? (c) is obviously "compile and run a test program" but what about (a) and (b)? It seems to me that FreeBSD's shared library system must be ill-designed if (a) and (b) are as difficult as it seems. Thanks, Nat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mozilla" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804141450.IAA26379>