Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:10:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Alexander N. Kabaev" <ak03@gte.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Message-ID: <XFMail.20010213121023.ak03@gte.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpu25yv8fc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Minor/major numbers in library file name mean nothing to the loader, so there is no prioblem with that. I am not proposing to restore the old minor number semantics. Rather, I am proposing to add '.' to the 5xx versioning scheme as an eye candy and ship libraries with these numbers in without doing counter-intuitive version numbers reversals. Just imagine how often these poor folks who bother to answer to postings on -questions from time to time will have to explain why 5 is >= than 5xx otherwise :) On 13-Feb-2001 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "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. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org ---------------------------------- E-Mail: Alexander N. Kabaev <ak03@gte.com> Date: 13-Feb-2001 Time: 11:58:15 ---------------------------------- 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?XFMail.20010213121023.ak03>