Lupe Christoph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, 2001-04-20 at 14:14:13 -0300, Peter Cordes wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 10:12:42AM -0600, Tim Uckun wrote: > > > Shared libraries may have been a good idea but somehow the > > > implementation in both windows and linux got all weird. I just > > > did a search for *.dll on my windows 2K system and it came back > > > with 4,303 files. > > I thought Linux supports versioning for shared libraries. Forgive me > for being a Solaris weenie, but I can't understand why you can't > have several versions of one shared library. Or can you in *Linux*, > but the Debian packaging breaks this?
Huh ? ls -l /lib/libncurses.so.* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Nov 8 16:04 /lib/libncurses.so.4 -> libncurses.so.4.2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 238700 Mar 5 2000 /lib/libncurses.so.4.2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Nov 26 20:38 /lib/libncurses.so.5 -> libncurses.so.5.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 233816 Nov 21 19:55 /lib/libncurses.so.5.0 > In Solaris, you have major version numvers for incompatible changes, > and minor versions numbers for fixes. Most libraries only use the > major version number. Same in Debian... > Well, can you have two versions of libc? You could, but glibc (>=2.1) provides versionned symbols and in theory the soname will never have to change again :-) Phil.
