MFC of bump in libcom_err.so another mistake?
Sean McNeil
sean at mcneil.com
Tue Jan 31 16:03:24 PST 2006
On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Sean McNeil wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if this was on purpose. Seems like there is no
>> good reason that it was done on -STABLE and it has really messed
>> up everything here for me.
>>
>> libcom_err.so.2 bumped to libcom_err.so.3.
>
> It was on purpose, but not necessarily for a good reason. Could
> you be more specific about "really messed up everything here for
> me", which sounds a lot to me like "and all hell broken loose"? I
> assume there's some sort of library and application versioning
> problem, but some details would be helpful.
I had several big packages that depended on kerberos and they all
broke because:
1) libcom_err.so.2.1 was moved to /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg/
2) The symlink libcom_err.so.2 was removed and nothing was placed in
compat.
I finally got smart and just added an entry to libmap.conf and so I'm
not "really messed up...". That was not accurate in the first place :)
> In principle, other than potentially requiring compat libs to run
> old binaries even though that may not strictly have been necessary,
> it seems likely that a binary depending on the old libcom_err
> depends also on an old libc. On the other hand, I consider library
> version number interactions to be mysterious, and likely have
> missed the point. :-)
The point I am making is that this is in the -STABLE tree, not the -
CURRENT tree. There is no bump of libc and I don't see any reason
for the libcom_err.so revision bump in -STABLE. IMHO, it didn't make
sense.
Cheers,
Sean
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list