Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:58:02 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: "Alexander N. Kabaev" <ak03@gte.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Message-ID: <200102131658.f1DGw2E12845@billy-club.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "13 Feb 2001 17:45:11 %2B0100." <xzpu25yv8fc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzpu25yv8fc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <XFMail.20010213114107.ak03@gte.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzpu25yv8fc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : "Alexander N. Kabaev" <ak03@gte.com> writes: : > I know this will sound silly, but if numbers in shared libraries file names : > mean nothing to the loader, why can't we just go back to using : > lib.so.<major>.<minor> naming convention for libc? Jumping between versions : > (5xx -> 5) just does not seem right. : : Because the loader would ignore the minor number - plus, the semantics : we want are not those that minor library version numbers used to have. The loader doesn't ignore the minor number. The symbolic link makes the library default, so it would "use" it. You are right that it wouldn't have a.out shared library minor number semantics. It is just a tag. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102131658.f1DGw2E12845>