On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 04:24:00PM +0000, Paul RichardsF wrote:
> When we dropped minor numbers I had a worry that we'd run into one of
> Windows' greatest problems and we have. Applications that are developed
> and tested to work with a particular library might not work with a
> different version,
How is that???
It is beter under ELF than a.out in that ld.so isn't making a guess as
to which shared libs were compatible and which weren't. The ELF ld.so
does not look for shared lib libxyz.so.2, find libxyz.so.3 and decide
maybe they are close enough and use it instead. The a.out ld.so would
use libxyz.so.2.2 when the binary was compiled and tested with
libxyz.so.2.1.
> we're suffering a worst case scenario of this problem
> now but even "fixes" in new versions can cause applications to break and
Don't confuse development (which in years past would have never made it
out of the "company's" development machines, with deployed releases.
> we've already seen this many times in this iteration of -current.
*Way*, way too many people are using -CURRENT that have no business doing
so.
> I think we need some form of version control on libraries so that
> applications know whether they're linking with the version they're
> designed for and to be able to keep multiple versions around in the
> system so all applications continue to work.
We have that today and it works very well [in our released product].
> I understand the reasoning that Elf doesn't need minor numbers but they
> served an useful purpose in maintaining application compatibility that
> we now lack.
NO! Please review the rules ld.so in both ELF and a.out varieties uses
in finding a desired shared lib.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
