*BSD News Article 33255


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!summer
From: summer@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield)
Subject: Re: shlib_minor from 0 to 1
Message-ID: <9420708.25038@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Organization: Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne
References: <3087d6$abn@quagga.ru.ac.za> <310fa1$c76@cleese.apana.org.au> <3112dm$gkr@quagga.ru.ac.za>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 22:25:08 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <3112dm$gkr@quagga.ru.ac.za> csgr@cs.ru.ac.za writes:
>
>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.

Which prompts the question, if the shared libraries from 1.1.5 operate
perfectly well under 1.1, with the 1.1 kernel, why aren't they available
separately?  Surely part of the point of shared libs (aside from the
space issue) is that libraries can be updated without recompiling all
the binaries that depend on them (at least some of the time).  There are
an increasing number of 1.1.5 ports out there in binary form, most of 
which would run fine on my 1.1 system, if only I had the new shared libs.

I know there are good reasons to upgrade to 1.1.5.1, but I don't think
this should be one of them.  Has the FreeBSD team considered making
shared library upgrades available separately?  This is presumably an
issue for future upgrades and bug-fixes, not just the present -- bug
fixes in shared libraries should not require patches, or complete
upgrades, just a new minor revision of the lib.

Mark.