Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:44:47 +0800 (WST) From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-user@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/scripts bin-install.sh Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960108162944.496A-100000@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: <22497.821086433@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Speaking of these, I was a bit disturbed when I saw the compat20.tgz file > > - it had a lot of libXXX.so.2.0 libs in there, and the install script > > seemed to be splatting all those over the top of the /usr/lib directory.. > > For example, it was splatting a 2.0 libutil.so.2.0 over the top of a 2.1 > > /usr/lib/libutil.so.2.0 > > Yep! > > I talked about this in the early days of 2.1, when others noticed that > the compat* dists seemed a little haphazardly put together and > exhibited the side-effects in question. All I can say in my own > defence is that I never really had time to do the compat libs at all, > and I warned people several times that if somebody didn't volunteer to > take that piece and make sure it was correct, I was just going to end > up having to throw something together at the last minute. > > And I did ask in May.. :-) > > To: current@freefall.cdrom.com > Subject: I still need a compat20 distribution! > Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 20:42:19 -0700 > Message-ID: <21940.801632539@freefall.cdrom.com> > From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" > Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org > Precedence: bulk > > It can be a single gzip'd tarball for all I care, but I really need > somebody to make a `compat20dist' that extracts relative to /. > > I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time to go chasing down all the > 2.0 compatability bits right now, so if you want to see support for > 2.0 binaries "out of the box" in 2.0.5, please consider stepping ^^^^^ > forward and making this distribution for me! > > Thanks! > > Jordan Heh. Oh well, I can pleady "Not Guilty!" - I was only just starting to sniff around back then. My research suggests that we need the following libs from 2.0-RELEASE in a compat20.tgz dist: libforms.so.2.0 libncurses.so.2.0 libdialog.so.2.0 libg++.so.2.0 libreadline.so.2.0 That's it! All these libraries jumped major revision to libblah.so.3.x in 2.0.5. We need no new libraries from 2.0.5, as no new major revision changes were made. When we start thinking about a 2.2 release, we will need the 2.1-REL (or 2.1.1-REL) libgcc.so.261.0, because that's apparently no longer being built shared on 2.2-CURRENT. In case anybody was wondering, 2.1-REL has libtermlib.so.2.1 - we do *NOT* need libtermlib.so.2.0 unless we really screwed something up. The minor revision means that functionality was added, not changed. Incidently, I dont think ld.so would ever pull in termlib.so.2.0 if 2.1 was present, because ld.so.cache will list "termlib.so.2 -> termlib.so.2.1" That huge big list of 2.0 libraries that's spamming the latest 2.1 version (remember the telnet undefined symbol problem?) needs to go on a big diet. :-) -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960108162944.496A-100000>