Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:02:24 +0900 From: Alexander Nedotsukov <bland@FreeBSD.org> To: FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: shared library pain with 6.0-RELEASE : .so.600 ?? Message-ID: <43700730.4040408@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com> References: <20051108002748.GA9736@svcolo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe, First. .600 have nothing in common with FreeBSD release-tag. Those numbers belong to GNOME/GTK libraries release cycle. Second. Basically multiple library versions co-existence is not so rosy as you probably think. Even if you solve header files conflicts there are a lot of software which alloc/dealloc various kind of resources across modules, libraries which extensively use static data etc. etc. etc. This will lead to very weird run-time behavior. But on the good note I'd happy to tell that those frequent shared library bumps was due bug in GNU autohell tools used by GNOME/GTK software authors. This problem addressed in GNOME 2.12 FreeBSD port which just hit the repository. So this is a last time you required to step through massive rebuild w/o a good reason for that. All the best, Alexander. Joe Rhett wrote: > Out of curiosity, why does 6.0-RELEASE ship with packages that install > shared libraries with .so.600 version numbers? > > It appears that installing nearly any port requires that all these > libraries get rebuild and reinstalled, followed by manually creating > symlinks to the .so.600 versions that everything is linked against. > > 1. Shouldn't library ports allow multiple versions to be installed, rather > than forcing a deinstall? libIDL is the most common dependancy culprit, > and with 5.x we ended up with 3 different symbolic links to make everything > happy. (unmaintainable, manually hacked into place symbolic links which > work around problems in the packages database) > > 2. Why did 6.0-RELEASE (and I think other releases in the past too?) name > the shared libraries with a release-tag version? Is there some logic to > this that escapes me? It only strikes me as painful for all the obvious > reasons. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43700730.4040408>