Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!quagga.ru.ac.za!Braae!g89r4222
From: csgr@cs.ru.ac.za (Geoff Rehmet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: shlib_minor from 0 to 1
Date: 25 Jul 1994 19:05:26 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University Computing Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <3112dm$gkr@quagga.ru.ac.za>
References: <3087d6$abn@quagga.ru.ac.za> <310fa1$c76@cleese.apana.org.au>
Reply-To: csgr@cs.ru.ac.za
NNTP-Posting-Host: braae.ru.ac.za
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #4 (NOV)
In <310fa1$c76@cleese.apana.org.au> newton@cleese.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes:
>In article <3087d6$abn@quagga.ru.ac.za>, Geoff Rehmet (csgr@cs.ru.ac.za) wrote:
>So: We have a 1.1release kernel with 1.1.5.1 binaries running software
>from both OS and shared library revisions with ease. To the best
>of my knowledge, your statement about 1.1 systems having trouble
>with 1.1.5 binaries is false (we haven't been getting any unexplained
>behaviour here, anyway!)
When I said that 1.1.5.1 binaries would not run on 1.1 was that a 1.1
system with lib*.so.1.0 would not be able to run 1.1.5 binaries, which
would require lib*.so.1.1.
Maybe I should have made my original posting a bit more clear.
What you are saying is correct.
Geoff.
--
Geoff Rehmet, Computer Science Department, | ____ _ o /\
Rhodes University, South Africa |___ _-\_<, / /\/\
FreeBSD core team | (*)/'(*) /\/ / \ \
csgr@cs.ru.ac.za, csgr@freefall.cdrom.com, geoff@neptune.ru.ac.za