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.