From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Feb 13 9: 0:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BEE37B491 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from billy-club.village.org (billy-club.village.org [10.0.0.3]) by rover.village.org (8.11.2/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1DH06h23721; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:00:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@billy-club.village.org) Received: from billy-club.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by billy-club.village.org (8.11.1/8.8.3) with ESMTP id f1DGw2E12845; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:58:02 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200102131658.f1DGw2E12845@billy-club.village.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Cc: "Alexander N. Kabaev" , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "13 Feb 2001 17:45:11 +0100." References: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:58:02 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : "Alexander N. Kabaev" 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.. 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